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 determined appellant's appeal was allowed. The Tribunal ruled the demand for central excise duty was time-barred as mere non-payment of duties cannot justify invoking extended limitation period without evidence of willful suppression or misstatement. While the appellant was correctly denied SSI exemption due to exceeding turnover limits and was liable for duty on articles of jewellery from March 2016, they were entitled to cum-duty benefit. The Tribunal held that demanding duty on exported goods was unjustified as substantive compliance was met despite procedural shortcomings. Consequently, penalties under Section 11AC(1)(c) and Rule 26 were deemed unsustainable. The proceedings were found to comply with principles of natural justice.
CESTAT determined appellant's appeal was allowed. The Tribunal ruled the demand for central excise duty was time-barred as mere non-payment of duties cannot justify invoking extended limitation period without evidence of willful suppression or misstatement. While the appellant was correctly denied SSI exemption due to exceeding turnover limits and was liable for duty on articles of jewellery from March 2016, they were entitled to cum-duty benefit. The Tribunal held that demanding duty on exported goods was unjustified as substantive compliance was met despite procedural shortcomings. Consequently, penalties under Section 11AC(1)(c) and Rule 26 were deemed unsustainable. The proceedings were found to comply with principles of natural justice.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
