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...
HC quashed the Revisional Authority's order dated 31/03/2023, allowing the petition. Petitioner had initially approached wrong forum (CESTAT) to challenge Commissioner (Appeals) order regarding CENVAT credit recovery and rebate claims. Under Section 14 Limitation Act, petitioner was entitled to benefit of wrong forum approach, and revision application was filed within prescribed three months from CESTAT order date. CESTAT correctly held petitioner entitled to CENVAT credit under Chapter Heading 847490 since classification dispute was not proposed in show cause notice. Revisional Authority erred in taking contrary view to CESTAT's judicial determination on identical facts regarding product classification, violating judicial propriety. Demand for CENVAT credit disallowance was properly set aside.
HC quashed the Revisional Authority's order dated 31/03/2023, allowing the petition. Petitioner had initially approached wrong forum (CESTAT) to challenge Commissioner (Appeals) order regarding CENVAT credit recovery and rebate claims. Under Section 14 Limitation Act, petitioner was entitled to benefit of wrong forum approach, and revision application was filed within prescribed three months from CESTAT order date. CESTAT correctly held petitioner entitled to CENVAT credit under Chapter Heading 847490 since classification dispute was not proposed in show cause notice. Revisional Authority erred in taking contrary view to CESTAT's judicial determination on identical facts regarding product classification, violating judicial propriety. Demand for CENVAT credit disallowance was properly set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
