Transfer pricing comparables and adjustments: Tribunal revisits loss-maker status, segmental comparability, working capital relief, and risk allocatio...
Business expenditure disallowance failed where commission, related-party salary and promotion payments were supported by records and inquiry was inade...
In a CESTAT appeal concerning alleged misdeclaration of imported oil, the tribunal held that inconclusive CRCL chemical reports indicating only some characteristics of base oil, and reliance on a single parameter (viscosity index) while omitting other essential parameters, were insufficient to sustain reclassification, revaluation or penalties; tentative wording ('may be') cannot replace categorical evidence. The adjudicating authority's refusal to examine or permit cross examination of the chemical examiner breached natural justice, so the benefit of doubt was accorded to the importers and the impugned adjudication was set aside.
In a CESTAT appeal concerning alleged misdeclaration of imported oil, the tribunal held that inconclusive CRCL chemical reports indicating only some characteristics of base oil, and reliance on a single parameter (viscosity index) while omitting other essential parameters, were insufficient to sustain reclassification, revaluation or penalties; tentative wording ('may be') cannot replace categorical evidence. The adjudicating authority's refusal to examine or permit cross examination of the chemical examiner breached natural justice, so the benefit of doubt was accorded to the importers and the impugned adjudication was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.