Valuation Officer estimates govern property-value additions once statutory valuation is invoked, requiring fresh consideration of objections and compa...
Waiver of written show-cause notice may prevent a later procedural challenge after participation in customs adjudication, preserving statutory appella...
Retrospective invalidity of ocean-freight IGST supports refunds despite non-party status and prior credit utilisation, subject to authorised appeal gr...
Additional evidence in departmental appeals may include show-cause-notice material without introducing a new case where it merely corroborates existin...
Reasoned rectification orders require consideration of expenditure disclosed in income-tax returns, preventing revision based on incomplete income com...
Modified returns after business reorganisations cannot trigger fresh scrutiny once the original assessment was complete, invalidating related transfer...
Third-party loose sheets require reliable nexus before supporting unexplained expenditure additions; presumptions do not establish payer identity or o...
TNMM comparability using audited accounts and working-capital adjustments can eliminate unwarranted transfer-pricing additions where verified margins ...
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) set aside the impugned order and remanded the cases back to the adjudicating authority. The appellants were granted the opportunity for cross-examination of material witnesses relied upon by the revenue authorities. This was based on the principle of natural justice, following precedents that denial of cross-examination violates fair procedure u/s 9D of the Central Excise Act. The adjudicating authority must allow cross-examination and follow due process for a fresh decision. The appellants were directed to cooperate for speedy disposal.
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) set aside the impugned order and remanded the cases back to the adjudicating authority. The appellants were granted the opportunity for cross-examination of material witnesses relied upon by the revenue authorities. This was based on the principle of natural justice, following precedents that denial of cross-examination violates fair procedure u/s 9D of the Central Excise Act. The adjudicating authority must allow cross-examination and follow due process for a fresh decision. The appellants were directed to cooperate for speedy disposal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4891 
