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...
Cross country pipeline classification and ITC entitlement: pipelines outside factory treated as immovable, ITC disallowed under Section 17 restriction...
Page of 4813
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6261 to 6280 of 96257 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Freight and insurance were held includible in the assessable value under Rule 10(2) because the importer failed to produce clear documentary proof that the FOB price already covered transportation and insurance up to importation; oral assertion alone was insufficient, and the invoice terms supported the Revenue's case. However, the demand was barred by limitation because the importer had disclosed the invoiced value and the treatment of freight and insurance in the bill of entry and supporting documents, so suppression or wilful misstatement was not proved. The Tribunal applied the principle that suppression requires a positive, deliberate act and treated the dispute as revenue neutral, allowing the appeal on limitation and setting aside the duty, interest and penalty.
Freight and insurance were held includible in the assessable value under Rule 10(2) because the importer failed to produce clear documentary proof that the FOB price already covered transportation and insurance up to importation; oral assertion alone was insufficient, and the invoice terms supported the Revenue's case. However, the demand was barred by limitation because the importer had disclosed the invoiced value and the treatment of freight and insurance in the bill of entry and supporting documents, so suppression or wilful misstatement was not proved. The Tribunal applied the principle that suppression requires a positive, deliberate act and treated the dispute as revenue neutral, allowing the appeal on limitation and setting aside the duty, interest and penalty.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.