Retrospective application of beneficial circulars upheld, binding officers and granting post adjudication relief where adjudication occurred after cir...
Admissibility of Investigation Statements requires witness examination before the adjudicating authority; otherwise statements cannot sustain a penalt...
Transaction value and connected person treatment in excise valuation: proprietary concerns not inter connected undertakings, relief on valuation and c...
Appointment of Registrars as adjudicating officers under Companies Act reallocates territorial jurisdiction and sets appeal route to Regional Director...
Composite supply of drilling services and site specific chemicals characterised as composite supply; prior advance rulings set aside, tax rate left op...
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 4819 
Join Channel 
