Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside the demand of differential customs duty, interest and consequential liabilities raised on the basis of the enhanced tariff value notified on 31.05.2013. It held that although the notification was published in the Gazette on 31.05.2013, it was not available or operationally accessible at the time of assessment and out-of-charge of the appellant's Bill of Entry on the same date, which had correctly applied the then-prevailing tariff value. CESTAT held that no misdeclaration could be alleged where the importer followed the tariff value in force at the time of assessment and where the system itself was not updated. The subsequent show cause notice, issued after substantial delay, was also held to be time-barred. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed and all demands were annulled.
CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside the demand of differential customs duty, interest and consequential liabilities raised on the basis of the enhanced tariff value notified on 31.05.2013. It held that although the notification was published in the Gazette on 31.05.2013, it was not available or operationally accessible at the time of assessment and out-of-charge of the appellant's Bill of Entry on the same date, which had correctly applied the then-prevailing tariff value. CESTAT held that no misdeclaration could be alleged where the importer followed the tariff value in force at the time of assessment and where the system itself was not updated. The subsequent show cause notice, issued after substantial delay, was also held to be time-barred. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed and all demands were annulled.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
