Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
CESTAT allowed the appeal, finding that the appellant acted in good faith by disclosing all relevant facts in coal extraction returns. The tribunal held that the extended period of limitation under Section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act was improperly invoked, as the appellant did not intentionally suppress information or evade duty. The demand for the period March 2011 to February 2015 was set aside, with the tribunal emphasizing that a bona fide interpretation of legal provisions does not constitute deliberate suppression of facts, consistent with Supreme Court precedent on self-assessment principles.
CESTAT allowed the appeal, finding that the appellant acted in good faith by disclosing all relevant facts in coal extraction returns. The tribunal held that the extended period of limitation under Section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act was improperly invoked, as the appellant did not intentionally suppress information or evade duty. The demand for the period March 2011 to February 2015 was set aside, with the tribunal emphasizing that a bona fide interpretation of legal provisions does not constitute deliberate suppression of facts, consistent with Supreme Court precedent on self-assessment principles.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.