Minimum Import Price restrictions for Black Pepper, Areca-nuts and Apples upheld; procedural laying failure not fatal, notifications to be placed befo...
Transaction value between related persons requires market-equivalent pricing; importer must prove declared value mirrors ordinary international trade ...
Classification of exported insecticides under export tariff affirmed; reclassification and related penalties set aside and MEIS scrip jurisdiction rec...
Misclassification between copra and dry coconut: customs recovery and re-valuation quashed for lack of prior licensing-authority invalidation, appeals...
Extended limitation for recovery of alleged inadmissible CENVAT credit was rejected because the assessee had disclosed total credit in statutory returns and was not legally required to furnish invoice-wise particulars; with documents already filed with a refund claim, suppression was not established, so demand beyond the normal period was set aside, while demand within limitation for Apr-Sep 2011 survived. Credit on outdoor catering for Apr-Sep 2011 was disallowed due to post-1-4-2011 statutory exclusion of such services as employee personal consumption. Credit was also disallowed where invoices lacked mandatory service description under Rule 9(2), and for accommodation and gym equipment AMC as excluded personal-use services. Alleged double-demand required factual verification and was remanded; Section 78 penalty was set aside. - CESTAT
Extended limitation for recovery of alleged inadmissible CENVAT credit was rejected because the assessee had disclosed total credit in statutory returns and was not legally required to furnish invoice-wise particulars; with documents already filed with a refund claim, suppression was not established, so demand beyond the normal period was set aside, while demand within limitation for Apr-Sep 2011 survived. Credit on outdoor catering for Apr-Sep 2011 was disallowed due to post-1-4-2011 statutory exclusion of such services as employee personal consumption. Credit was also disallowed where invoices lacked mandatory service description under Rule 9(2), and for accommodation and gym equipment AMC as excluded personal-use services. Alleged double-demand required factual verification and was remanded; Section 78 penalty was set aside. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
