Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
CESTAT adjudicated a case involving CENVAT Credit availment, holding that statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 are only admissible as evidence after following strict procedural requirements. The tribunal found no substantive proof of fraudulent credit utilization, emphasizing that invoices and registration documents demonstrated compliance with Cenvat Credit Rule, 2004. The department failed to establish deliberate misrepresentation or suppression of facts. Critically, the tribunal noted procedural irregularities in invoking extended period of limitation without concrete investigative evidence. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the appeal, effectively quashing allegations of fraudulent credit availment and nullifying the extended period show cause notice.
CESTAT adjudicated a case involving CENVAT Credit availment, holding that statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 are only admissible as evidence after following strict procedural requirements. The tribunal found no substantive proof of fraudulent credit utilization, emphasizing that invoices and registration documents demonstrated compliance with Cenvat Credit Rule, 2004. The department failed to establish deliberate misrepresentation or suppression of facts. Critically, the tribunal noted procedural irregularities in invoking extended period of limitation without concrete investigative evidence. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the appeal, effectively quashing allegations of fraudulent credit availment and nullifying the extended period show cause notice.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.