Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
In this CESTAT decision, the Tribunal allowed the appeal against allegations of clandestine manufacture and removal of MS ingots. The Tribunal found multiple procedural violations by the adjudicating authority, including failure to comply with Section 9D(2) of the Central Excise Act when relying on statements recorded under Section 14, and non-compliance with Section 36B regarding electronic evidence admissibility. The Tribunal emphasized that in cases involving serious financial penalties, Revenue must meet a "clear and convincing evidence" standard, which was not satisfied. The investigation lacked corroborative evidence such as unaccounted raw material procurement, production capacity evaluation, or statements from transporters. Consequently, the demands for duty on alleged clandestine clearances, recovery of CENVAT credit, and associated penalties were found unsustainable.
In this CESTAT decision, the Tribunal allowed the appeal against allegations of clandestine manufacture and removal of MS ingots. The Tribunal found multiple procedural violations by the adjudicating authority, including failure to comply with Section 9D(2) of the Central Excise Act when relying on statements recorded under Section 14, and non-compliance with Section 36B regarding electronic evidence admissibility. The Tribunal emphasized that in cases involving serious financial penalties, Revenue must meet a "clear and convincing evidence" standard, which was not satisfied. The investigation lacked corroborative evidence such as unaccounted raw material procurement, production capacity evaluation, or statements from transporters. Consequently, the demands for duty on alleged clandestine clearances, recovery of CENVAT credit, and associated penalties were found unsustainable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
