Alternative statutory remedy under GST bars writ challenge where classification, notice variance, and hearing disputes require factual appellate revie...
Duplicate PAN cancellation timeframe requires prior administrative representation before judicial intervention, ensuring a time-bound decision on the ...
Clandestine removal - it is alleged that respondents have shown excess manufacture in order to avail excess refund to the tune of Rs. 60 lakhs - burden of proof lies with the prosecution or not - The Tribunal acknowledges the serious nature of the charge but finds that the Revenue failed to establish tangible evidence beyond a single test run. They emphasize the necessity of thorough investigation and tangible evidence to prove such allegations conclusively. - The Tribunal notes the various factors affecting fuel consumption and production, concluding that a single test run cannot accurately represent overall production.
Clandestine removal - it is alleged that respondents have shown excess manufacture in order to avail excess refund to the tune of Rs. 60 lakhs - burden of proof lies with the prosecution or not - The Tribunal acknowledges the serious nature of the charge but finds that the Revenue failed to establish tangible evidence beyond a single test run. They emphasize the necessity of thorough investigation and tangible evidence to prove such allegations conclusively. - The Tribunal notes the various factors affecting fuel consumption and production, concluding that a single test run cannot accurately represent overall production.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4894 
