Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
The Appellate Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation for demand of duty could not be invoked as there was no suppression of facts or intent to evade payment of Central Excise duty by the appellants. The manufacture, clearances, and business transactions were duly recorded in books of account maintained by the appellants. The CENVAT credit demand and interest were set aside as the credit was reversed without utilization. No penalty was imposable as there was no intention to evade duty. The personal penalty on the partner was also set aside, following jurisdictional High Court precedents that separate personal penalties on partners in a firm case are unjustified. Consequently, the appeal was allowed.
The Appellate Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation for demand of duty could not be invoked as there was no suppression of facts or intent to evade payment of Central Excise duty by the appellants. The manufacture, clearances, and business transactions were duly recorded in books of account maintained by the appellants. The CENVAT credit demand and interest were set aside as the credit was reversed without utilization. No penalty was imposable as there was no intention to evade duty. The personal penalty on the partner was also set aside, following jurisdictional High Court precedents that separate personal penalties on partners in a firm case are unjustified. Consequently, the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
