Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
The CESTAT held that for invoking the extended period of limitation u/s 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, there must be a deliberate attempt to evade payment of duty. Mere incorrect belief of the assessee regarding classification or valuation does not constitute suppression of facts. The Supreme Court precedents in Pushpam Pharmaceuticals and Easland Combines were relied upon. Since there was no suppression of facts by the assessee, the invocation of extended period of limitation was not tenable. Consequently, the appeal was allowed.
The CESTAT held that for invoking the extended period of limitation u/s 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, there must be a deliberate attempt to evade payment of duty. Mere incorrect belief of the assessee regarding classification or valuation does not constitute suppression of facts. The Supreme Court precedents in Pushpam Pharmaceuticals and Easland Combines were relied upon. Since there was no suppression of facts by the assessee, the invocation of extended period of limitation was not tenable. Consequently, the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
