Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Page of 4784
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95673 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 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
