Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Page of 4796
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
781 to 800 of 95918 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
