Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
The CESTAT held that the Appellant did not provide any "Business Auxiliary Services" to Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. as per Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994. The demand was set aside as the Adjudicating Authority cannot travel beyond the scope of the show cause notice. The extended period of limitation was also set aside due to lack of evidence of suppression or willful misstatement by the Appellant. The appeal was allowed.
The CESTAT held that the Appellant did not provide any "Business Auxiliary Services" to Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. as per Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994. The demand was set aside as the Adjudicating Authority cannot travel beyond the scope of the show cause notice. The extended period of limitation was also set aside due to lack of evidence of suppression or willful misstatement by the Appellant. The appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
