Revenue neutrality in domestic related-party loans can require deletion of interest transfer pricing adjustments after domestic-transaction verificati...
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the Commissioner's order dated 21.10.2024, holding that the imposition of penalty could not be sustained. The Tribunal affirmed the Inquiry Officer's factual finding that the appellant did not contravene regulations 10(d) and 10(e) (and related provisions 11(d)/11(e)) of the CBLR, 2013, noting that subsequent reassessment of earlier Bills of Entry resulted in acceptance of the contested CTSH and grant of the Notification benefit and refund of differential duty. The Commissioner's disagreement with the Inquiry Officer's report was procedurally unsound because he failed to issue a reasoned show-cause notice before overruling that report; accordingly the penalty and the impugned order were set aside.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the Commissioner's order dated 21.10.2024, holding that the imposition of penalty could not be sustained. The Tribunal affirmed the Inquiry Officer's factual finding that the appellant did not contravene regulations 10(d) and 10(e) (and related provisions 11(d)/11(e)) of the CBLR, 2013, noting that subsequent reassessment of earlier Bills of Entry resulted in acceptance of the contested CTSH and grant of the Notification benefit and refund of differential duty. The Commissioner's disagreement with the Inquiry Officer's report was procedurally unsound because he failed to issue a reasoned show-cause notice before overruling that report; accordingly the penalty and the impugned order were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
