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...
Where the declared import values were substantially lower than contemporaneous values, the proper officer had reasonable doubt about the truth and accuracy of the transaction value, and rejection of the declared value was justified; the importer's online acceptance of such rejection was treated as voluntary, not coerced. Upon rejection, valuation was required to proceed under the Customs Valuation Rules by applying Rule 4 (identical goods) failing which Rule 5 (similar goods), and the re-determination based on similar goods under Rule 5 was upheld. However, since the importer had correctly declared the transaction value in the Bill of Entry and could not anticipate re-determination, confiscation under Section 111(m) was unwarranted; consequently, redemption fine and penalty under Section 112 were set aside. - CESTAT
Where the declared import values were substantially lower than contemporaneous values, the proper officer had reasonable doubt about the truth and accuracy of the transaction value, and rejection of the declared value was justified; the importer's online acceptance of such rejection was treated as voluntary, not coerced. Upon rejection, valuation was required to proceed under the Customs Valuation Rules by applying Rule 4 (identical goods) failing which Rule 5 (similar goods), and the re-determination based on similar goods under Rule 5 was upheld. However, since the importer had correctly declared the transaction value in the Bill of Entry and could not anticipate re-determination, confiscation under Section 111(m) was unwarranted; consequently, redemption fine and penalty under Section 112 were set aside. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
