Statutory transfer formalities invalidated alleged share and property transfers, while retrospective record manipulation constituted oppression and mi...
Provisional attachment of laundered funds and equivalent-value property sustained, with statutory protection limited to pension, gratuity and providen...
Insolvency moratorium does not shield company officers from cheque dishonour prosecution for liability arising before corporate insolvency proceedings...
Advance-ruling mechanism governs pending GST classification, exemption and taxability disputes, limiting writ review once the specialised forum functi...
Page of 4788
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
581 to 600 of 95752 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT partly allowed the Revenue's appeal. It upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' setting aside of the Joint Commissioner's rejection and redetermination of the declared FOB value, holding that the proper officer had neither validly rejected the transaction value under rule 8 nor followed the mandatory sequential valuation under rules 4 to 6. However, it restored the Joint Commissioner's reclassification of the export goods under the correct serial numbers of the Drawback and ROSCTL Schedules, as CRCL's test confirmed the garments were of blended fabric and not 100% cotton. Confiscation per se and redemption fine were found unsustainable in the facts, particularly in view of the provisional release bond terms. Penalty under section 114AA was held not leviable for want of proof of conscious mis-declaration. Penalty of Rs. 2,00,000 under section 114(iii), being linked to mis-declaration of fabric rendering the goods liable to confiscation, was restored.
CESTAT partly allowed the Revenue's appeal. It upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' setting aside of the Joint Commissioner's rejection and redetermination of the declared FOB value, holding that the proper officer had neither validly rejected the transaction value under rule 8 nor followed the mandatory sequential valuation under rules 4 to 6. However, it restored the Joint Commissioner's reclassification of the export goods under the correct serial numbers of the Drawback and ROSCTL Schedules, as CRCL's test confirmed the garments were of blended fabric and not 100% cotton. Confiscation per se and redemption fine were found unsustainable in the facts, particularly in view of the provisional release bond terms. Penalty under section 114AA was held not leviable for want of proof of conscious mis-declaration. Penalty of Rs. 2,00,000 under section 114(iii), being linked to mis-declaration of fabric rendering the goods liable to confiscation, was restored.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
