Opportunity to furnish unsecured-loan confirmations is required before reassessment initiation; proceedings require fresh consideration after taxpayer...
Under-reporting on a first reassessment return attracts penalty, while enhanced misreporting penalty requires proof of a statutory misreporting catego...
The CESTAT allowed the appeal. The appellant had been adjusting duty payments considering sale price at factory gate and ex-C&F depot price, resulting in excess and short payments. The appellant informed the department about the price details since 2009. The CESTAT held that invoking extended period of limitation u/s 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was wrong as there was no fraud, wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts with intent to evade duty by the appellant. The impugned order confirming the show cause notice demanding short payment of duty was set aside as legally unsustainable on the point of time limitation.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal. The appellant had been adjusting duty payments considering sale price at factory gate and ex-C&F depot price, resulting in excess and short payments. The appellant informed the department about the price details since 2009. The CESTAT held that invoking extended period of limitation u/s 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was wrong as there was no fraud, wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts with intent to evade duty by the appellant. The impugned order confirming the show cause notice demanding short payment of duty was set aside as legally unsustainable on the point of time limitation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4916 
