Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
The appellant was issued penalty u/r 26(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002, alleging that second stage dealers based in Jaipur were issuing cenvatable invoices to the main noticee without delivering goods, which were purchased from first stage dealers and manufactured by non-existent or non-working manufacturers. The Commissioner (Appeals) recorded categorical findings that the main noticee had duly received goods and made duty payment. Tribunal held that when the demand for cenvat credit itself is not maintainable, there is no justification to affirm penalty on the appellant. Following the principles enunciated by Division Bench in Drolia Electrosteel case, where department accepted findings of Commissioner (Appeals), there is no justification to uphold penalty imposition on appellant. The impugned order was set aside and appeal allowed.
The appellant was issued penalty u/r 26(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002, alleging that second stage dealers based in Jaipur were issuing cenvatable invoices to the main noticee without delivering goods, which were purchased from first stage dealers and manufactured by non-existent or non-working manufacturers. The Commissioner (Appeals) recorded categorical findings that the main noticee had duly received goods and made duty payment. Tribunal held that when the demand for cenvat credit itself is not maintainable, there is no justification to affirm penalty on the appellant. Following the principles enunciated by Division Bench in Drolia Electrosteel case, where department accepted findings of Commissioner (Appeals), there is no justification to uphold penalty imposition on appellant. The impugned order was set aside and appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
