Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. It held that valuation could not be on transaction value under s.4(1)(a) as removals were stock transfers; valuation fell under s.4(1)(b) read with Rule 7. Discounts known at or before removal, whether via invoice or post-clearance credit notes, qualified as permissible deductions from assessable value where genuinely passed to buyers, supported by ledgers and policies. The departmental disallowance of such discounts and consequent differential duty demand was unsustainable; interest on those disallowed demands was not exigible. Payments of differential duty with interest voluntarily made by the Appellant were considered non-refundable. Appeal allowed.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. It held that valuation could not be on transaction value under s.4(1)(a) as removals were stock transfers; valuation fell under s.4(1)(b) read with Rule 7. Discounts known at or before removal, whether via invoice or post-clearance credit notes, qualified as permissible deductions from assessable value where genuinely passed to buyers, supported by ledgers and policies. The departmental disallowance of such discounts and consequent differential duty demand was unsustainable; interest on those disallowed demands was not exigible. Payments of differential duty with interest voluntarily made by the Appellant were considered non-refundable. Appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
