Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
CESTAT set aside multiple duty demands totaling over Rs. 2.3 crores against appellant manufacturer of LABSA. Primary allegations of clandestine manufacture and removal based on theoretical input-output ratios (1:1.475 vs 1:1.45) were rejected due to lack of chemical examination. Demands based on batch charges, computer printouts, and diary entries were dropped for insufficient evidence and non-compliance with Section 36B requirements. Claims regarding spent acid clearance and CENVAT credit denial were invalidated. Only the matter of Rs. 3,27,046/- regarding consignment agent sales was remanded for verification. Associated penalties on appellant and co-appellants were set aside, as demands were primarily based on assumptions without corroborative evidence of unauthorized raw material procurement.
CESTAT set aside multiple duty demands totaling over Rs. 2.3 crores against appellant manufacturer of LABSA. Primary allegations of clandestine manufacture and removal based on theoretical input-output ratios (1:1.475 vs 1:1.45) were rejected due to lack of chemical examination. Demands based on batch charges, computer printouts, and diary entries were dropped for insufficient evidence and non-compliance with Section 36B requirements. Claims regarding spent acid clearance and CENVAT credit denial were invalidated. Only the matter of Rs. 3,27,046/- regarding consignment agent sales was remanded for verification. Associated penalties on appellant and co-appellants were set aside, as demands were primarily based on assumptions without corroborative evidence of unauthorized raw material procurement.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
