Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Condonation of delay permits statutory appeal restoration where inadequate service explanation prevented consideration of reassessment and taxable-inc...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
121 to 140 of 95955 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Differential CVD on imported mobile phones could not be recovered on the basis of alleged post-import alteration of retail sale price. The Tribunal found no sufficient evidence that the importer itself misdeclared or later manipulated the RSP, and rejected the attempt to treat the importer and distributor as one entity because the distributor was a separate legal person and there was no basis to pierce the corporate veil. It also held that customs law contained no machinery to redetermine RSP for reassessment of additional duty, and that any post-import relabelling would, at most, raise deemed manufacture consequences under central excise law. The demand, confiscation and penalties were therefore set aside.
Differential CVD on imported mobile phones could not be recovered on the basis of alleged post-import alteration of retail sale price. The Tribunal found no sufficient evidence that the importer itself misdeclared or later manipulated the RSP, and rejected the attempt to treat the importer and distributor as one entity because the distributor was a separate legal person and there was no basis to pierce the corporate veil. It also held that customs law contained no machinery to redetermine RSP for reassessment of additional duty, and that any post-import relabelling would, at most, raise deemed manufacture consequences under central excise law. The demand, confiscation and penalties were therefore set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
