Consultancy fees claimed as business expense-can tax disallowance rest on survey suspicion despite invoices, contracts and bank trail? Appeal dismisse...
The dominant issue was whether exemption for re-imported goods after repairs under Notification No. 94/96-Cus could be denied for want of marks and numbers proving identity with the earlier exported goods. The tribunal held that, despite absence of physical identification marks, the chain of commercial invoices, airway bills, and the repair certificate sufficiently established documentary linkage between the exported defective parts and the re-imported goods, entitling the importer to the exemption. Consequently, re-determination of value, confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty were unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside with consequential relief. - CESTAT
The dominant issue was whether exemption for re-imported goods after repairs under Notification No. 94/96-Cus could be denied for want of marks and numbers proving identity with the earlier exported goods. The tribunal held that, despite absence of physical identification marks, the chain of commercial invoices, airway bills, and the repair certificate sufficiently established documentary linkage between the exported defective parts and the re-imported goods, entitling the importer to the exemption. Consequently, re-determination of value, confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty were unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside with consequential relief. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
