Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95715 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CENVAT credit on MS scrap received under registered dealer invoices was admissible where valid invoices, banking payments, statutory records, transport-service tax and evidence of consumption supported receipt, while manufacture and clearance of finished goods remained undisputed. The Revenue had to prove non-receipt through affirmative evidence and identify an alternative raw-material source; suspicion and incomplete investigation were insufficient. Uncorroborated, contradictory investigation statements could not sustain denial without compliance with Section 9D safeguards. Limited Vahan portal vehicle discrepancies, without examination of vehicle owners or independent evidence, could not establish fictitious transactions. Extended limitation was unavailable because statutory returns and records disclosed the credit and no fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression with intent to evade duty was proved. Credit reversal, interest and penalties were set aside.
CENVAT credit on MS scrap received under registered dealer invoices was admissible where valid invoices, banking payments, statutory records, transport-service tax and evidence of consumption supported receipt, while manufacture and clearance of finished goods remained undisputed. The Revenue had to prove non-receipt through affirmative evidence and identify an alternative raw-material source; suspicion and incomplete investigation were insufficient. Uncorroborated, contradictory investigation statements could not sustain denial without compliance with Section 9D safeguards. Limited Vahan portal vehicle discrepancies, without examination of vehicle owners or independent evidence, could not establish fictitious transactions. Extended limitation was unavailable because statutory returns and records disclosed the credit and no fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression with intent to evade duty was proved. Credit reversal, interest and penalties were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.