Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
Imposition of penalty u/r 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2022 on the Appellant, who was the Director of Sales and Marketing of the co-noticee Company. The Respondent Department exhibited a non-responsive attitude. The case involved the interpretation of the "Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019". Despite acknowledging that the Appellant was responsible for Sales and Marketing activities, the Commissioner held the Appellant personally liable for the manufacture of goods by the Company and the evasion of excise duty. However, the CESTAT had previously set aside the penalty order against the Appellant in 2015, and no further proceedings were initiated. Additionally, even without an application under the "Sabka Vishwas Scheme", the penalty recoverable from the Appellant should be treated as "NIL" u/s 124(1)(b) of the Amended Finance Act, 2019. The charge against the Appellant imposing penalty is unsustainable in law and facts. The CESTAT allowed the appeal, stating that there exists no scope for re-adjudication.
Imposition of penalty u/r 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2022 on the Appellant, who was the Director of Sales and Marketing of the co-noticee Company. The Respondent Department exhibited a non-responsive attitude. The case involved the interpretation of the "Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019". Despite acknowledging that the Appellant was responsible for Sales and Marketing activities, the Commissioner held the Appellant personally liable for the manufacture of goods by the Company and the evasion of excise duty. However, the CESTAT had previously set aside the penalty order against the Appellant in 2015, and no further proceedings were initiated. Additionally, even without an application under the "Sabka Vishwas Scheme", the penalty recoverable from the Appellant should be treated as "NIL" u/s 124(1)(b) of the Amended Finance Act, 2019. The charge against the Appellant imposing penalty is unsustainable in law and facts. The CESTAT allowed the appeal, stating that there exists no scope for re-adjudication.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
