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 4800
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96000 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 manufactured polyester staple fiber (PSF) using PET bottles scrap (90%) and popcorn waste (less than 10%). The department denied the nil/concessional duty benefit under relevant notifications, alleging popcorn is not plastic waste and the appellant suppressed facts. The Tribunal held that in the absence of words like 'only', 'exclusively' in the notifications, the benefit cannot be denied merely for using a small quantity of popcorn waste along with PET bottles scrap. Popcorn being manufactured from plastic waste/scrap, cannot be excluded from the notifications' scope. Regarding extended period of limitation, the Tribunal held that mere non-disclosure is not suppression unless deliberate to evade duty. The appellant disclosed using popcorn in statements/returns, hence no suppression. The department failed to establish the appellant deliberately suppressed facts to evade duty, thus extended period was wrongly invoked. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals. The penalty on the Director was also questioned as the department failed to prove the Director dealt with confiscatable goods knowingly.
The appellant manufactured polyester staple fiber (PSF) using PET bottles scrap (90%) and popcorn waste (less than 10%). The department denied the nil/concessional duty benefit under relevant notifications, alleging popcorn is not plastic waste and the appellant suppressed facts. The Tribunal held that in the absence of words like 'only', 'exclusively' in the notifications, the benefit cannot be denied merely for using a small quantity of popcorn waste along with PET bottles scrap. Popcorn being manufactured from plastic waste/scrap, cannot be excluded from the notifications' scope. Regarding extended period of limitation, the Tribunal held that mere non-disclosure is not suppression unless deliberate to evade duty. The appellant disclosed using popcorn in statements/returns, hence no suppression. The department failed to establish the appellant deliberately suppressed facts to evade duty, thus extended period was wrongly invoked. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals. The penalty on the Director was also questioned as the department failed to prove the Director dealt with confiscatable goods knowingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
