Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Automated Free Sale and Commerce Certificates enable paperless processing while retaining risk-based manual verification for selected exporter applica...
Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
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 4827 
Join Channel 
