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...
Clandestine removal of excisable goods alleged based on statements recorded from partners, employees, and buyers. Section 9D of Central Excise Act mandates cross-examination of witnesses before admitting statements as evidence against appellant. Adjudicating authority rejected request for cross-examination, rendering witness statements inadmissible. Reliance solely on loose papers/dispatch chits insufficient to establish clandestine removal. Discrepancies and contradictions in evidence noted. Separate penalty on partners of firm impermissible per precedent. Demand and penalties set aside due to lack of admissible evidence proving clandestine removal beyond doubt. Appeal allowed.
Clandestine removal of excisable goods alleged based on statements recorded from partners, employees, and buyers. Section 9D of Central Excise Act mandates cross-examination of witnesses before admitting statements as evidence against appellant. Adjudicating authority rejected request for cross-examination, rendering witness statements inadmissible. Reliance solely on loose papers/dispatch chits insufficient to establish clandestine removal. Discrepancies and contradictions in evidence noted. Separate penalty on partners of firm impermissible per precedent. Demand and penalties set aside due to lack of admissible evidence proving clandestine removal beyond doubt. Appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
