Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
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...
CESTAT Mumbai addressed a case involving a differential Central Excise duty demand u/s 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant discharged the duty upon obtaining CAS-4 certificates showing actual values of intermediate goods. The tribunal found the duty demand unsustainable as the appellant had paid duty based on available records and later adjusted it upon determining actual costs. The department's proposed addition to base cost was deemed insufficient to invoke Section 11A(4). The tribunal also ruled that the extended limitation period couldn't be applied for clearances to other units. Penalties u/s 11AC (1)(a) and u/r 25(1)(a) were deemed unjustified. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
CESTAT Mumbai addressed a case involving a differential Central Excise duty demand u/s 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant discharged the duty upon obtaining CAS-4 certificates showing actual values of intermediate goods. The tribunal found the duty demand unsustainable as the appellant had paid duty based on available records and later adjusted it upon determining actual costs. The department's proposed addition to base cost was deemed insufficient to invoke Section 11A(4). The tribunal also ruled that the extended limitation period couldn't be applied for clearances to other units. Penalties u/s 11AC (1)(a) and u/r 25(1)(a) were deemed unjustified. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
