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...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Worked mica in the two live consignments was correctly classified under tariff item 68149090 because the test reports and physical examination showed processed mica beyond crude mica or mere rifting, and the differential duty on those consignments was upheld. Test reports from those consignments could not be extrapolated to past consignments without samples or evidence for each Bill of Entry, so the demand on the past 72 consignments was unsustainable. The dispute was held to be one of classification, with no suppression, willful misstatement or collusion shown, so extended limitation under Section 28(4) could not be invoked. As there was no material misdeclaration or false document, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties under Sections 111(m), 112, 114A and 114AA were set aside.
Worked mica in the two live consignments was correctly classified under tariff item 68149090 because the test reports and physical examination showed processed mica beyond crude mica or mere rifting, and the differential duty on those consignments was upheld. Test reports from those consignments could not be extrapolated to past consignments without samples or evidence for each Bill of Entry, so the demand on the past 72 consignments was unsustainable. The dispute was held to be one of classification, with no suppression, willful misstatement or collusion shown, so extended limitation under Section 28(4) could not be invoked. As there was no material misdeclaration or false document, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties under Sections 111(m), 112, 114A and 114AA were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.