Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Integrated golf function determines classification, placing launch monitors and simulators under other golf equipment rather than measuring instrument...
Public servant status under anti-corruption law extends to recognised stock exchange leadership; constitutional and sanction challenges do not succeed...
Acquiescence, homebuyer protection and clean-slate resolution principles prevent landowners from disrupting an integrated project through late termina...
CESTAT held that the relevant date for determination of duty under Section 15(1)(a) was the date of filing of the bills of entry, because the bills were filed after entry inwards and were not advance bills of entry. Notification No. 21/2022-Cus. was therefore unavailable when duty liability crystallised, and the importer could not invoke a later exemption by choice. The proviso concerning bills of entry presented before entry inwards was inapplicable on the facts. The Tribunal also held that substitution under Section 46(5) was discretionary and could be refused where it would prejudice revenue; no arbitrariness was shown. The refusal to substitute the bills of entry into warehousing bills was upheld.
CESTAT held that the relevant date for determination of duty under Section 15(1)(a) was the date of filing of the bills of entry, because the bills were filed after entry inwards and were not advance bills of entry. Notification No. 21/2022-Cus. was therefore unavailable when duty liability crystallised, and the importer could not invoke a later exemption by choice. The proviso concerning bills of entry presented before entry inwards was inapplicable on the facts. The Tribunal also held that substitution under Section 46(5) was discretionary and could be refused where it would prejudice revenue; no arbitrariness was shown. The refusal to substitute the bills of entry into warehousing bills was upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
