Scope of intermediary status for data hosting services: tribunal finds provider not intermediary, services exported and not taxable, limited remand on...
CENVAT credit availability after omission of Rule 12B in textiles confirmed; late addendum to SCN introducing new grounds held time-barred and invalid...
Export of Wheat Flour and related products subject to online allocation, eligibility criteria, non-transferable six-month authorisations and reporting...
Straight-line lease rental accounting change results in penalty quashed where disclosed accounts and bona fide arguable accounting interpretation exis...
Page of 4823
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
7141 to 7160 of 96456 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Rejection of declared transaction value and consequent confiscation/penalty for alleged mis-declaration/undervaluation were held unsustainable because the department failed to discharge the burden under Section 14 and the Valuation Rules: no contemporaneous comparable import data was cited, no valid grounds under Rule 4(2) were recorded for doubting the declared value, and no evidence showed extra-remittances beyond invoice value; reliance on domestic raw-material averages was impermissible. Accordingly, enhancement of value and action under Sections 111(m) and 112 were set aside. The adjudication was also vitiated for breach of natural justice due to non-issuance/absence of confrontation with valuation material and failure to adhere to statutory timelines post-seizure, rendering the order invalid; appeal allowed. - CESTAT
Rejection of declared transaction value and consequent confiscation/penalty for alleged mis-declaration/undervaluation were held unsustainable because the department failed to discharge the burden under Section 14 and the Valuation Rules: no contemporaneous comparable import data was cited, no valid grounds under Rule 4(2) were recorded for doubting the declared value, and no evidence showed extra-remittances beyond invoice value; reliance on domestic raw-material averages was impermissible. Accordingly, enhancement of value and action under Sections 111(m) and 112 were set aside. The adjudication was also vitiated for breach of natural justice due to non-issuance/absence of confrontation with valuation material and failure to adhere to statutory timelines post-seizure, rendering the order invalid; appeal allowed. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4823 
Join Channel 
