Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
261 to 280 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 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 
