Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
CESTAT held that export consignments comprising mixed Iron Ore fines and low-percentage lumps could not be classified as Iron Ore lumps for levy of higher export duty, as lumps were not the predominant component. The Tribunal further ruled that export duty and value must be determined on the basis of Fe content and moisture percentage ascertained at the discharge port in terms of the export contracts, and that the declared transaction value could not be rejected without strictly following the Customs Valuation Rules and affording the exporters due opportunity. However, CESTAT upheld denial of cum-duty benefit, holding FOB value as the transaction value for export duty from 01.01.2009. Departmental appeals were dismissed; exporters' appeals were allowed to the above extent.
CESTAT held that export consignments comprising mixed Iron Ore fines and low-percentage lumps could not be classified as Iron Ore lumps for levy of higher export duty, as lumps were not the predominant component. The Tribunal further ruled that export duty and value must be determined on the basis of Fe content and moisture percentage ascertained at the discharge port in terms of the export contracts, and that the declared transaction value could not be rejected without strictly following the Customs Valuation Rules and affording the exporters due opportunity. However, CESTAT upheld denial of cum-duty benefit, holding FOB value as the transaction value for export duty from 01.01.2009. Departmental appeals were dismissed; exporters' appeals were allowed to the above extent.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
