Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Reusable metal containers owned by an overseas supplier and imported with raw material were not treated as separately dutiable goods under the Customs Act, 1962; applying the Supreme Court principle in Chairman, Board of Trustees, Cochin Port Trust v. Arebee Star Maritime Agencies, the Tribunal held that duty could not be demanded again on the containers. Under section 14 read with Rule 10(1) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, only packing cost actually incurred or payable by the importer could be included, and the rental value of the packing material was already reflected in the CIF value of the imported synthetic rubber. The reassessment, including interest and penalties, was set aside.
Reusable metal containers owned by an overseas supplier and imported with raw material were not treated as separately dutiable goods under the Customs Act, 1962; applying the Supreme Court principle in Chairman, Board of Trustees, Cochin Port Trust v. Arebee Star Maritime Agencies, the Tribunal held that duty could not be demanded again on the containers. Under section 14 read with Rule 10(1) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, only packing cost actually incurred or payable by the importer could be included, and the rental value of the packing material was already reflected in the CIF value of the imported synthetic rubber. The reassessment, including interest and penalties, was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
