Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding that advertisement and promotional expenses (APE) and management service fees (MSF) paid by the importer cannot be added to the transaction value under rule 10(1)(e) of the 2007 Valuation Rules or treated as a condition of sale under section 14(1) of the Customs Act. The Tribunal found APE were incurred on the importer's own account per rule 3(2)(b) and MSF constituted independent service consideration unconnected with import pricing. Consequently, differential duty, interest under section 28AA and penalty under section 114A could not be imposed, and invocation of extended limitation was unsustainable.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding that advertisement and promotional expenses (APE) and management service fees (MSF) paid by the importer cannot be added to the transaction value under rule 10(1)(e) of the 2007 Valuation Rules or treated as a condition of sale under section 14(1) of the Customs Act. The Tribunal found APE were incurred on the importer's own account per rule 3(2)(b) and MSF constituted independent service consideration unconnected with import pricing. Consequently, differential duty, interest under section 28AA and penalty under section 114A could not be imposed, and invocation of extended limitation was unsustainable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
