Clean slate principle extinguishes uncrystallised operational claims and bars continuation of pending recovery and arbitral proceedings after plan app...
Works contract classification governs composite layout-development contracts where VAT-paid goods are transferred alongside construction and infrastru...
Specified income tax exemption for pollution control body remains conditional on non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return filin...
Jurisdictional facts in certificate-of-origin discrepancies can support customs show-cause proceedings, leaving factual explanations for departmental ...
Clandestine removal demand based on electrical consumption was challenged. Average electricity consumption for certain periods was calculated. Cross-examination of officials whose statements were relied upon was denied, violating natural justice principles. The Tribunal consistently rejected electricity consumption-based quantification using Dr. Batra's formula. However, in this case, the Revenue calculated actual average consumption without using the formula. The appellant's argument regarding applicability of case law was rejected. The appellant was denied the opportunity to cross-examine persons whose statements were relied upon, contrary to the High Court's ruling allowing such cross-examination. The matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to provide the appellant an opportunity for cross-examination.
Clandestine removal demand based on electrical consumption was challenged. Average electricity consumption for certain periods was calculated. Cross-examination of officials whose statements were relied upon was denied, violating natural justice principles. The Tribunal consistently rejected electricity consumption-based quantification using Dr. Batra's formula. However, in this case, the Revenue calculated actual average consumption without using the formula. The appellant's argument regarding applicability of case law was rejected. The appellant was denied the opportunity to cross-examine persons whose statements were relied upon, contrary to the High Court's ruling allowing such cross-examination. The matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to provide the appellant an opportunity for cross-examination.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
