Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedur...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2121 to 2140 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The case before CESTAT Chennai involved the recovery of short-paid excise duty, interest, and penalty, focusing on the admissibility of electronic evidence obtained during previous proceedings for a different company. The key issues included compliance with Section 36B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, quantification of demand based on cash to invoice value, and alleged suppression of facts. The tribunal found that the electronic evidence did not comply with Section 36B, rendering it inadmissible. Additionally, the method of quantifying duty based on dealer prices from different regions was deemed inappropriate. Ultimately, the demand for duty, interest, and penalties was not sustained, and the appeal was allowed.
The case before CESTAT Chennai involved the recovery of short-paid excise duty, interest, and penalty, focusing on the admissibility of electronic evidence obtained during previous proceedings for a different company. The key issues included compliance with Section 36B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, quantification of demand based on cash to invoice value, and alleged suppression of facts. The tribunal found that the electronic evidence did not comply with Section 36B, rendering it inadmissible. Additionally, the method of quantifying duty based on dealer prices from different regions was deemed inappropriate. Ultimately, the demand for duty, interest, and penalties was not sustained, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
