Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1161 to 1180 of 96001 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
