Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
CESTAT held that imported Architectural Gypsum Moulding products were correctly classifiable under CTH 6809 9000 as articles of plaster, not under CTH 2520 2090 covering crude gypsum. The appellant deliberately mis-declared classification to obtain exemption under Notification 12/2012, unavailable for Chapter 68 products. Evidence showed appellant previously classified similar products under CTH 6809, establishing suppression and mis-declaration. CESTAT confirmed duty demand with interest and penalty under Section 114A against the importer, but set aside penalty under Section 114AA on customs broker, finding no evidence of broker's involvement in mis-declaration. Appeal partially allowed.
CESTAT held that imported Architectural Gypsum Moulding products were correctly classifiable under CTH 6809 9000 as articles of plaster, not under CTH 2520 2090 covering crude gypsum. The appellant deliberately mis-declared classification to obtain exemption under Notification 12/2012, unavailable for Chapter 68 products. Evidence showed appellant previously classified similar products under CTH 6809, establishing suppression and mis-declaration. CESTAT confirmed duty demand with interest and penalty under Section 114A against the importer, but set aside penalty under Section 114AA on customs broker, finding no evidence of broker's involvement in mis-declaration. Appeal partially allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
