Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
701 to 720 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
