Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
CESTAT upheld the demand for central excise duty, interest, and penalties against the appellant who contravened Notification No. 42/2001-CE and Excise Rule 19. The appellant had obtained CT-1 Certificates and removed goods without duty payment under two ARE-1 forms but failed to submit required documentation proving export. Instead of exporting the goods, the appellant sold them domestically to CEL. The Tribunal emphasized that Excise Rule 19 specifically requires evidence that goods removed from a factory must be exported, not merely sold domestically to parties who might eventually export them. As the appellant failed to follow prescribed export procedures, the appeal was dismissed.
CESTAT upheld the demand for central excise duty, interest, and penalties against the appellant who contravened Notification No. 42/2001-CE and Excise Rule 19. The appellant had obtained CT-1 Certificates and removed goods without duty payment under two ARE-1 forms but failed to submit required documentation proving export. Instead of exporting the goods, the appellant sold them domestically to CEL. The Tribunal emphasized that Excise Rule 19 specifically requires evidence that goods removed from a factory must be exported, not merely sold domestically to parties who might eventually export them. As the appellant failed to follow prescribed export procedures, the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
