Retrospective cancellation of charitable registration under section 12AB(4) was unsustainable; related-party benefit allegations did not prove nongenu...
Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2701 to 2720 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT held that the respondent's rebate claim based on CIF value was permissible under Central Excise law. The tribunal determined the respondent is eligible for full duty refund on CIF value, rejecting revenue's contention. The extended period of limitation was deemed inappropriate since the department was previously aware of the valuation issue. The tribunal emphasized that inclusion of freight and insurance in transaction value does not constitute fraud or intent to evade duty. Consequently, the revenue's appeal was dismissed, affirming the original adjudicating authority's order and ensuring revenue neutrality in the duty calculation process.
CESTAT held that the respondent's rebate claim based on CIF value was permissible under Central Excise law. The tribunal determined the respondent is eligible for full duty refund on CIF value, rejecting revenue's contention. The extended period of limitation was deemed inappropriate since the department was previously aware of the valuation issue. The tribunal emphasized that inclusion of freight and insurance in transaction value does not constitute fraud or intent to evade duty. Consequently, the revenue's appeal was dismissed, affirming the original adjudicating authority's order and ensuring revenue neutrality in the duty calculation process.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
