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...
Burden of proof rested on the Revenue to prove imported items were Open Cells rather than LED/LCD panels; the Revenue failed to discharge this burden given conflicting expert opinions and lack of adversarial testing of experts, so the tribunal held the imports qualified as LED/LCD panels and were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-Cus (S.No. 432). The tribunal further held extended limitation under section 28(4) inapplicable due to absence of collusion or suppression, and set aside confiscation, redemption fine and penalty under section 114A, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.
Burden of proof rested on the Revenue to prove imported items were Open Cells rather than LED/LCD panels; the Revenue failed to discharge this burden given conflicting expert opinions and lack of adversarial testing of experts, so the tribunal held the imports qualified as LED/LCD panels and were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-Cus (S.No. 432). The tribunal further held extended limitation under section 28(4) inapplicable due to absence of collusion or suppression, and set aside confiscation, redemption fine and penalty under section 114A, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
