Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
CESTAT allowed appeal concerning CENVAT credit disputes. Tribunal set aside demand of Rs.1,79,11,286 based on ST-3 returns and credit register differences, noting statutory compliance in utilizing 50% credit on capital goods. Demand of Rs.59,94,339 for input services was reversed as manpower services qualified as eligible inputs for telephonic services. Demand u/r 3(5A) for capital goods sold as scrap was invalidated as no CENVAT credit was originally claimed on pre-2004 goods. Extended limitation period was rejected considering regular ST-3 filing, departmental audits, and appellant's PSU status precluding mala fide intent. All demands were set aside and appeal was allowed in appellant's favor.
CESTAT allowed appeal concerning CENVAT credit disputes. Tribunal set aside demand of Rs.1,79,11,286 based on ST-3 returns and credit register differences, noting statutory compliance in utilizing 50% credit on capital goods. Demand of Rs.59,94,339 for input services was reversed as manpower services qualified as eligible inputs for telephonic services. Demand u/r 3(5A) for capital goods sold as scrap was invalidated as no CENVAT credit was originally claimed on pre-2004 goods. Extended limitation period was rejected considering regular ST-3 filing, departmental audits, and appellant's PSU status precluding mala fide intent. All demands were set aside and appeal was allowed in appellant's favor.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.