Reopening of assessment cannot rest solely on an audit party's opinion; reassessment under Section 147/148 is impermissible and power of revision shou...
Tested party selection: functional analysis identified the least complex unit as the appropriate tested party, altering the transfer pricing adjustmen...
Whether customs duty was payable on re-imported pharmaceuticals cleared for destruction: held that Rule 31, Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, prohibits import of drugs with under 60% residual shelf life except where permitted solely for destruction, and such permission does not itself waive duty at customs. The proper course was assessment and demand of duty at clearance or invocation of section 23 Customs Act for remission by relinquishing title; the adjudicating authority failed to examine whether duty should have been levied or remission claimed. Because permission limited use to destruction, no penalty for illegal import arises; matter remanded for fresh adjudication on duty liability. - CESTAT
Whether customs duty was payable on re-imported pharmaceuticals cleared for destruction: held that Rule 31, Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, prohibits import of drugs with under 60% residual shelf life except where permitted solely for destruction, and such permission does not itself waive duty at customs. The proper course was assessment and demand of duty at clearance or invocation of section 23 Customs Act for remission by relinquishing title; the adjudicating authority failed to examine whether duty should have been levied or remission claimed. Because permission limited use to destruction, no penalty for illegal import arises; matter remanded for fresh adjudication on duty liability. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.