The accused denied bail over alleged GST credential misuse to commit Rs.1,09,11,404 fraud involving multiple proprietorships; investigation to continu...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
9701 to 9720 of 96510 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT set aside the impugned order insofar as it held that royalty payments to a foreign related entity were includible in the transaction value of imported components under rule 10(1)(c) of the 2007 Valuation Rules. The Tribunal concluded the royalty related to domestically manufactured finished goods, was not a condition of sale of the imported goods, and therefore could not be added to assessable value; consequential imposition of penalty under s.114A of the Customs Act was unsustainable. The Tribunal further held the extended period of limitation could not be invoked because there was no evidence of suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. The appeal was allowed and the impugned order set aside.
CESTAT set aside the impugned order insofar as it held that royalty payments to a foreign related entity were includible in the transaction value of imported components under rule 10(1)(c) of the 2007 Valuation Rules. The Tribunal concluded the royalty related to domestically manufactured finished goods, was not a condition of sale of the imported goods, and therefore could not be added to assessable value; consequential imposition of penalty under s.114A of the Customs Act was unsustainable. The Tribunal further held the extended period of limitation could not be invoked because there was no evidence of suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. The appeal was allowed and the impugned order set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
