Scope of intermediary status for data hosting services: tribunal finds provider not intermediary, services exported and not taxable, limited remand on...
CENVAT credit availability after omission of Rule 12B in textiles confirmed; late addendum to SCN introducing new grounds held time-barred and invalid...
Export of Wheat Flour and related products subject to online allocation, eligibility criteria, non-transferable six-month authorisations and reporting...
Straight-line lease rental accounting change results in penalty quashed where disclosed accounts and bona fide arguable accounting interpretation exis...
Page of 4827
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
7221 to 7240 of 96536 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
For second-hand machinery, customs valuation must follow the statutory sequence under the Valuation Rules and cannot rest on internet offers, broad market estimates, or unsupported tonnage methods. Where imported cranes were examined, assessed on chartered engineer certification, and no reliable evidence of a higher transaction value or legally admissible corroboration existed, the later redetermination of assessable value and differential duty failed. A time-bar also applied to consignments beyond five years under Section 28, so duty could not survive on those imports. Mere mismatch between declared invoice value and later revalued figures did not prove misdeclaration for confiscation or penalty under Section 111(m); redemption fine and penalties were set aside. The same unsustainable valuation basis could not support finalisation of provisional assessment under Section 18.
For second-hand machinery, customs valuation must follow the statutory sequence under the Valuation Rules and cannot rest on internet offers, broad market estimates, or unsupported tonnage methods. Where imported cranes were examined, assessed on chartered engineer certification, and no reliable evidence of a higher transaction value or legally admissible corroboration existed, the later redetermination of assessable value and differential duty failed. A time-bar also applied to consignments beyond five years under Section 28, so duty could not survive on those imports. Mere mismatch between declared invoice value and later revalued figures did not prove misdeclaration for confiscation or penalty under Section 111(m); redemption fine and penalties were set aside. The same unsustainable valuation basis could not support finalisation of provisional assessment under Section 18.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.