Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
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 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
