Credit-note turnover adjustments preserve inverted-duty refunds, while ministerial re-computation does not constitute an impermissible appellate reman...
Revisional jurisdiction over export quota premium deductions requires both error and Revenue prejudice; a permissible assessment view cannot be displa...
Job Work: The Tribunal observed that there was no evidence to substantiate the allegation that the appellant carried out activities amounting to 'manufacture' such as quality testing or labelling at their premises. Without identification and quantification of the goods allegedly manufactured, the show cause notice was deemed ex-facie bad in law. Consequently, the demand for central excise duty, interest, and penalties imposed on the appellant company and its partner were set aside. The Tribunal further held that since no suppression of facts with the intention to evade tax was established, invoking the extended period of limitation to demand duty was legally unsustainable.
Job Work: The Tribunal observed that there was no evidence to substantiate the allegation that the appellant carried out activities amounting to 'manufacture' such as quality testing or labelling at their premises. Without identification and quantification of the goods allegedly manufactured, the show cause notice was deemed ex-facie bad in law. Consequently, the demand for central excise duty, interest, and penalties imposed on the appellant company and its partner were set aside. The Tribunal further held that since no suppression of facts with the intention to evade tax was established, invoking the extended period of limitation to demand duty was legally unsustainable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
