Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
Imported goods were found, on examination and CRCL testing, to be polyester filament yarn fabric though declared as viscose polyamide woven fabric; the importer did not dispute the mis-declaration and accepted re-classification and consequent re-assessment, so reclassification was sustained. Since the invoice related to different goods, the proper officer had reasonable doubt under Rule 12 to reject the declared transaction value; as no supporting evidence was produced, value was correctly re-determined under the sequential rules using contemporaneous import data of similar goods, and differential duty was sustained. Mis-declaration attracted confiscation under s.111(m); redemption fine at about 10% of value was upheld, and mandatory penalty equal to duty under s.114A was affirmed; appeal dismissed. - CESTAT
Imported goods were found, on examination and CRCL testing, to be polyester filament yarn fabric though declared as viscose polyamide woven fabric; the importer did not dispute the mis-declaration and accepted re-classification and consequent re-assessment, so reclassification was sustained. Since the invoice related to different goods, the proper officer had reasonable doubt under Rule 12 to reject the declared transaction value; as no supporting evidence was produced, value was correctly re-determined under the sequential rules using contemporaneous import data of similar goods, and differential duty was sustained. Mis-declaration attracted confiscation under s.111(m); redemption fine at about 10% of value was upheld, and mandatory penalty equal to duty under s.114A was affirmed; appeal dismissed. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
