Electronic WhatsApp evidence without authentication or independent corroboration cannot sustain an unexplained-investment addition based on third-part...
Mutual current-account transactions excluded from deemed dividend treatment where no fresh borrowing arose; unsupported unsecured-loan addition also f...
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 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
