Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3221 to 3240 of 96177 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 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
