Opportunity to furnish unsecured-loan confirmations is required before reassessment initiation; proceedings require fresh consideration after taxpayer...
Under-reporting on a first reassessment return attracts penalty, while enhanced misreporting penalty requires proof of a statutory misreporting catego...
CESTAT partially allowed the appeal concerning CENVAT credit on dumpers/tippers under operating lease. While credit was previously permitted, Notification 25/2010-CE mandated registration in service provider's name for eligibility. As vehicles were registered with lessor SEFPL, not appellant, credit was disallowed. Interest demand upheld per SC's compensatory principle in Pratibha Processors. However, extended period limitation and penalties were set aside due to genuine belief supported by prior favorable rulings before March 2011 notification. CESTAT found no evidence of duty evasion intent, concluding appellant acted under reasonable interpretation of Rule 4(3) during the ambiguous period.
CESTAT partially allowed the appeal concerning CENVAT credit on dumpers/tippers under operating lease. While credit was previously permitted, Notification 25/2010-CE mandated registration in service provider's name for eligibility. As vehicles were registered with lessor SEFPL, not appellant, credit was disallowed. Interest demand upheld per SC's compensatory principle in Pratibha Processors. However, extended period limitation and penalties were set aside due to genuine belief supported by prior favorable rulings before March 2011 notification. CESTAT found no evidence of duty evasion intent, concluding appellant acted under reasonable interpretation of Rule 4(3) during the ambiguous period.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.