Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The CESTAT upheld the imposition of penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 against the appellant, a GPA holder, for involvement in evasion of Customs and Central Excise duty through diversion of finished goods into the Domestic Tariff Area without payment of duty. The Tribunal found the appellant and co-accused instrumental in executing a fraudulent scheme, including misuse of 100% EOU concessions and submission of forged export documents. The Memorandum of Understanding dated 22.11.2001 was held to be a valid legal document substantiating liability. Despite delays and repeated opportunities for personal hearing, the appellant failed to respond. The impugned Order-in-Original was deemed lawful, reasoned, and based on correct appreciation of evidence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the penalty and confirming the appellant's responsibility for the contraventions under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and associated rules.
The CESTAT upheld the imposition of penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 against the appellant, a GPA holder, for involvement in evasion of Customs and Central Excise duty through diversion of finished goods into the Domestic Tariff Area without payment of duty. The Tribunal found the appellant and co-accused instrumental in executing a fraudulent scheme, including misuse of 100% EOU concessions and submission of forged export documents. The Memorandum of Understanding dated 22.11.2001 was held to be a valid legal document substantiating liability. Despite delays and repeated opportunities for personal hearing, the appellant failed to respond. The impugned Order-in-Original was deemed lawful, reasoned, and based on correct appreciation of evidence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the penalty and confirming the appellant's responsibility for the contraventions under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and associated rules.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
