Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
The CESTAT held that the contract manufacturers (CMs) were not...
Beneficial owner held liable for differential customs duty; royalties added under Rule 10(1)(c); confiscation, penalties under s.111(m), s.114A, s.112(a), s.114AA
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
The CESTAT held that the contract manufacturers (CMs) were not the buyers of the imported parts and components; X Corp was the beneficial owner and therefore chargeable with differential customs duty. Royalties/license fees were held addable to transaction value under Rule 10(1)(c) and demand for duty could be made from the beneficial owner; extended limitation was invoked for willful suppression. Interest on delayed payment was confirmed. The goods were liable to confiscation under s.111(m). Penalty under s.114A was sustained against X Corp (precluding a concurrent s.112 levy); CMs were liable under s.112(a) and s.114AA. No penalties were imposed on the named executive. Differential duty with interest was confirmed and the matter was remanded to the OA to redetermine penalties. Appeal disposed.
The CESTAT held that the contract manufacturers (CMs) were not the buyers of the imported parts and components; X Corp was the beneficial owner and therefore chargeable with differential customs duty. Royalties/license fees were held addable to transaction value under Rule 10(1)(c) and demand for duty could be made from the beneficial owner; extended limitation was invoked for willful suppression. Interest on delayed payment was confirmed. The goods were liable to confiscation under s.111(m). Penalty under s.114A was sustained against X Corp (precluding a concurrent s.112 levy); CMs were liable under s.112(a) and s.114AA. No penalties were imposed on the named executive. Differential duty with interest was confirmed and the matter was remanded to the OA to redetermine penalties. Appeal disposed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
