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 dismisses the appeal and upholds reassessment and...
Appeal dismissed; reassessment and penalties upheld for deliberate RSP mis-declaration; valuation redetermined under Rules 5,7,12; s28(4) and ss114A/114AA affirmed
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
CESTAT dismisses the appeal and upholds reassessment and penalties. The Tribunal found deliberate mis-declaration of RSP on Bills of Entry, contrasted with recovered tags showing an RSP approximately ten times higher; the declared assessable value was rejected under Rule 12 and re-determined under Rules 5 and 7 of the Valuation Rules. The revenue validly invoked extended limitation under suppression of facts and confirmed demand under section 28(4). Penalties under sections 114A and 114AA were lawfully imposed for willful misstatement/suppression and short levy, given post-clearance affixation of correct price tags did not constitute manufacture rendering the original declaration bona fide. The impugned order is affirmed; appeal dismissed.
CESTAT dismisses the appeal and upholds reassessment and penalties. The Tribunal found deliberate mis-declaration of RSP on Bills of Entry, contrasted with recovered tags showing an RSP approximately ten times higher; the declared assessable value was rejected under Rule 12 and re-determined under Rules 5 and 7 of the Valuation Rules. The revenue validly invoked extended limitation under suppression of facts and confirmed demand under section 28(4). Penalties under sections 114A and 114AA were lawfully imposed for willful misstatement/suppression and short levy, given post-clearance affixation of correct price tags did not constitute manufacture rendering the original declaration bona fide. The impugned order is affirmed; appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.