Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
CESTAT held that the concessional basic customs duty under Notification No. 57/2017-Cus. was available for the imported Cisco Catalyst 3850 Series Ethernet Switches because the denial rested on an earlier order that had already been set aside in a precedent on identical goods, later upheld by the Bombay High Court; the concession was therefore allowed for the three Bills of Entry actually covered by the appellate order. On maintainability, the Tribunal held that an appeal lies under Section 129A(1) only against an order of the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 128A, and payment of duty under protest does not itself create an appealable order. As no appellate order existed for the remaining thirty-eight Bills of Entry, those appeals were dismissed as not maintainable.
CESTAT held that the concessional basic customs duty under Notification No. 57/2017-Cus. was available for the imported Cisco Catalyst 3850 Series Ethernet Switches because the denial rested on an earlier order that had already been set aside in a precedent on identical goods, later upheld by the Bombay High Court; the concession was therefore allowed for the three Bills of Entry actually covered by the appellate order. On maintainability, the Tribunal held that an appeal lies under Section 129A(1) only against an order of the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 128A, and payment of duty under protest does not itself create an appealable order. As no appellate order existed for the remaining thirty-eight Bills of Entry, those appeals were dismissed as not maintainable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.