Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
CESTAT adjudicated a customs duty dispute involving allegations of undervaluation and fake invoices. The tribunal found critical evidentiary deficiencies in the department's case, specifically regarding the authenticity and provenance of printed documents. The tribunal invalidated the differential duty demand and associated penalties under sections 112 and 114AA, determining that the Additional Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals) failed to substantively address the extended limitation period invocation. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the impugned order dated 31.03.2014, allowing the appeals and effectively quashing the customs duty demand against the importer.
CESTAT adjudicated a customs duty dispute involving allegations of undervaluation and fake invoices. The tribunal found critical evidentiary deficiencies in the department's case, specifically regarding the authenticity and provenance of printed documents. The tribunal invalidated the differential duty demand and associated penalties under sections 112 and 114AA, determining that the Additional Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals) failed to substantively address the extended limitation period invocation. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the impugned order dated 31.03.2014, allowing the appeals and effectively quashing the customs duty demand against the importer.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
