Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
CESTAT determined that sales tax/VAT amounts retained by appellant under state government's deferment scheme must be included in transaction value for computing central excise duty under Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944. This follows established precedent regarding inclusion of retained tax portions in assessable value. However, extended period of limitation was deemed unjustified as department failed to prove suppression of material facts with intent to evade duty. Issue involved legal interpretation rather than deliberate evasion. Final ruling confirmed demand for normal period with interest and cum-duty benefit, without penalties. Extended period demand was set aside. Matter concerned tax retention under state concession scheme and its treatment under central excise valuation.
CESTAT determined that sales tax/VAT amounts retained by appellant under state government's deferment scheme must be included in transaction value for computing central excise duty under Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944. This follows established precedent regarding inclusion of retained tax portions in assessable value. However, extended period of limitation was deemed unjustified as department failed to prove suppression of material facts with intent to evade duty. Issue involved legal interpretation rather than deliberate evasion. Final ruling confirmed demand for normal period with interest and cum-duty benefit, without penalties. Extended period demand was set aside. Matter concerned tax retention under state concession scheme and its treatment under central excise valuation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
