COVID-19 limitation exclusion and destination-specific e-way bills govern revisional timelines and penalties for undocumented third-party plywood deli...
Questions arising from miscellaneous application orders cannot challenge unaltered Tribunal findings, leaving the original order separately challengea...
Transfer-pricing comparability filters require fresh arm's-length analysis, while delayed receivables need separate reconsideration with working-capit...
Section 153C jurisdiction requires timely deemed search and assessee-specific satisfaction material; otherwise reassessment must use the proper statut...
Page of 4891
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
681 to 700 of 97820 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The CESTAT set aside the demand and penalties imposed on the grounds of alleged clandestine removal, holding that the charge was not substantiated by sufficient evidence. It observed that mere alleged recording of higher royalty payment by the franchiser, without corroborative proof of actual higher production, procurement of raw materials, sale proceeds etc., cannot sustain the allegation of clandestine manufacture and removal. The statements recorded behind the appellants' back and documents seized from third parties were held inadmissible without allowing cross-examination. Lack of clinching evidence regarding clandestine operations rendered the entire demand unsustainable, and consequently, the penalties were also set aside.
The CESTAT set aside the demand and penalties imposed on the grounds of alleged clandestine removal, holding that the charge was not substantiated by sufficient evidence. It observed that mere alleged recording of higher royalty payment by the franchiser, without corroborative proof of actual higher production, procurement of raw materials, sale proceeds etc., cannot sustain the allegation of clandestine manufacture and removal. The statements recorded behind the appellants' back and documents seized from third parties were held inadmissible without allowing cross-examination. Lack of clinching evidence regarding clandestine operations rendered the entire demand unsustainable, and consequently, the penalties were also set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4891 
