Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 
