Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1161 to 1180 of 96001 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
