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...
Invoking the extended period of limitation u/s 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act for recovery of unpaid duty. The key points are: The department alleged suppression of facts by the appellant with intent to evade duty payment, invoking the 5-year limitation period instead of the normal 1-year period. However, the Commissioner did not provide adequate reasoning or consider the appellant's reply regarding the complex nature of classification. The Tribunal examined the Supreme Court's interpretation in Pushpam Pharmaceuticals case, which held that to invoke extended limitation, suppression of facts must be deliberate to escape duty payment. Mere difference of opinion between department and assessee on duty liability cannot be construed as willful suppression. The Tribunal found the Commissioner's order invoking extended limitation period without proper examination as unsustainable and set it aside, allowing the appeal.
Invoking the extended period of limitation u/s 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act for recovery of unpaid duty. The key points are: The department alleged suppression of facts by the appellant with intent to evade duty payment, invoking the 5-year limitation period instead of the normal 1-year period. However, the Commissioner did not provide adequate reasoning or consider the appellant's reply regarding the complex nature of classification. The Tribunal examined the Supreme Court's interpretation in Pushpam Pharmaceuticals case, which held that to invoke extended limitation, suppression of facts must be deliberate to escape duty payment. Mere difference of opinion between department and assessee on duty liability cannot be construed as willful suppression. The Tribunal found the Commissioner's order invoking extended limitation period without proper examination as unsustainable and set it aside, allowing the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
