Transfer pricing comparables selection and working capital adjustment u/r 10B(1)(e)(iii), remanded for recomputation with rejected comparables include...
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 4817 
Join Channel 
