Specialized Investment Fund distribution now requires dedicated certification, while transitional recognition preserves existing qualified distributor...
Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
921 to 940 of 96001 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 Kaizen Organics Pvt. Ltd. was found guilty of fraudulently availing CENVAT credit and cash refund by showing fictitious manufacturing of excisable goods purportedly supplied to them by Koolmint. The Tribunal held that there was no credible evidence of actual manufacturing activity by Koolmint, and the claims of electricity consumption from DG sets lacked merit. The entire transaction appeared to be a sham to wrongfully avail duty benefits. Section 11D of the Central Excise Act was rightly invoked to recover Rs. 95,60,962 collected by Koolmint under the guise of excise duty. The extended period of limitation was correctly applied as the fraud vitiated all statutory records ab initio. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the Commissioner's order demanding duty, interest and penalties.
The appellant Kaizen Organics Pvt. Ltd. was found guilty of fraudulently availing CENVAT credit and cash refund by showing fictitious manufacturing of excisable goods purportedly supplied to them by Koolmint. The Tribunal held that there was no credible evidence of actual manufacturing activity by Koolmint, and the claims of electricity consumption from DG sets lacked merit. The entire transaction appeared to be a sham to wrongfully avail duty benefits. Section 11D of the Central Excise Act was rightly invoked to recover Rs. 95,60,962 collected by Koolmint under the guise of excise duty. The extended period of limitation was correctly applied as the fraud vitiated all statutory records ab initio. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the Commissioner's order demanding duty, interest and penalties.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
