Residual food-preparation classification places fermented Nata De Coco outside fruit-jelly categories, changing its GST treatment across notified peri...
Settlement application eligibility requires a pending assessment when filed, preventing an extra prior-eligibility condition from blocking considerati...
CESTAT Bangalore held that show-cause notices invoking extended period u/s 28(1)/(4) of Customs Act were not valid as appellant had informed authorities about capital goods destruction and obtained necessary permissions for de-bonding. Commissioner (A) dropped penalty u/s 114A due to continuous correspondence with no suppression of facts. Order-in-Appeal upheld demand u/s 72(1) based on B17 bond, not sustainable beyond show-cause notice. Decision referenced CCE vs. Gas Authority of India Ltd. to set aside impugned orders and allow appeals.
CESTAT Bangalore held that show-cause notices invoking extended period u/s 28(1)/(4) of Customs Act were not valid as appellant had informed authorities about capital goods destruction and obtained necessary permissions for de-bonding. Commissioner (A) dropped penalty u/s 114A due to continuous correspondence with no suppression of facts. Order-in-Appeal upheld demand u/s 72(1) based on B17 bond, not sustainable beyond show-cause notice. Decision referenced CCE vs. Gas Authority of India Ltd. to set aside impugned orders and allow appeals.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
