Pre-existing operational debt disputes require genuine evidence, while undirected running-account payments may be appropriated on a first-in-first-out...
Agency in CNG distribution makes outlet operators commission agents, rendering taxable Business Auxiliary Service rather than purchasing goods for res...
Composite inpatient healthcare supply may retain exemption despite MRP medicine billing, while separate taxable sale characterisation remains disputed...
Working-capital adjustment determines whether software-services transfer-pricing margins fall within the statutory tolerance range, eliminating any ad...
Permanent establishment deductions upheld for expatriate salaries, direct costs and trading losses, while head-office costs require fresh classificati...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1061 to 1080 of 96092 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
