Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Levy of imposed u/s 114A - Classification of imported goods - import of Shell Flavex Oil 595 B/H - item being Plasticizer - The Appellate Tribunal recognized the bona fide belief of the appellant in classifying the imported goods under CTH 38122090 as plasticizer, given that the tariff entry included the compound "Plasticizer." Furthermore, it noted that this classification was consistent across all Indian ports and was also accepted by the department. The appellant had not contested the duty liability and had paid the entire amount along with interest before the issuance of the show cause notice. - The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's actions did not meet the criteria for penalty imposition under this section. There was no evidence of suppression of fact, collusion, or willful misstatement on the part of the appellant.
Levy of imposed u/s 114A - Classification of imported goods - import of Shell Flavex Oil 595 B/H - item being Plasticizer - The Appellate Tribunal recognized the bona fide belief of the appellant in classifying the imported goods under CTH 38122090 as plasticizer, given that the tariff entry included the compound "Plasticizer." Furthermore, it noted that this classification was consistent across all Indian ports and was also accepted by the department. The appellant had not contested the duty liability and had paid the entire amount along with interest before the issuance of the show cause notice. - The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's actions did not meet the criteria for penalty imposition under this section. There was no evidence of suppression of fact, collusion, or willful misstatement on the part of the appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
