Notification No. 12/97-Customs(N.T.) amendment adds Malur Inland Container Depot in Karnataka to authorized locations for import unloading and export ...
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 
of 4824 
Join Channel 
