Tax authority's substitution of projected figures with actuals overturned; original acquisition valuation upheld; transfer pricing issues remitted for...
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...
CESTAT allowed the appeal of the 100% EOU, holding that the benefit of N/N. 52/2003-Cus applies to inputs used in manufacture even where wastage exceeds SION norms, provided the inputs are actually used in the production process and waste/scrap is duly cleared on payment of duty and not removed unauthorisedly. Relying on the interpretation of the non-obstante clause in the notification, the Tribunal rejected the Department's view that excess wastage automatically attracted duty or penalty. It held that the Commissioner and the adjudicating authority had erred in demanding customs duty of Rs. 34,555/-, imposing penalty of Rs. 5,000/- and redemption fine of Rs. 20,000/-. All such demands and penalties were set aside, and the appeal was fully allowed.
CESTAT allowed the appeal of the 100% EOU, holding that the benefit of N/N. 52/2003-Cus applies to inputs used in manufacture even where wastage exceeds SION norms, provided the inputs are actually used in the production process and waste/scrap is duly cleared on payment of duty and not removed unauthorisedly. Relying on the interpretation of the non-obstante clause in the notification, the Tribunal rejected the Department's view that excess wastage automatically attracted duty or penalty. It held that the Commissioner and the adjudicating authority had erred in demanding customs duty of Rs. 34,555/-, imposing penalty of Rs. 5,000/- and redemption fine of Rs. 20,000/-. All such demands and penalties were set aside, and the appeal was fully allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
