PMLA anticipatory bail requires satisfaction of twin conditions, while predicate-offence protection does not extend to independent money-laundering pr...
School-affiliation charges remain taxable where not directly connected with examinations, while extended limitation requires proof of deliberate tax e...
The CESTAT held that statements recorded by income tax officers under the Income Tax Act are inadmissible as evidence in Central Excise proceedings. The impugned order lacked any proper investigation under the Central Excise Act to establish clandestine manufacture or removal, resulting in insufficient evidence to sustain the duty demand. Consequently, the demand of duty, interest, and penalties against the appellant was quashed. Additionally, penalties imposed on other appellants were set aside as the relevant Central Excise Rules did not authorize penalties without confiscation of goods or issuance of false invoices enabling ineligible CENVAT credit. The appeal was allowed, and all impugned demands and penalties were annulled.
The CESTAT held that statements recorded by income tax officers under the Income Tax Act are inadmissible as evidence in Central Excise proceedings. The impugned order lacked any proper investigation under the Central Excise Act to establish clandestine manufacture or removal, resulting in insufficient evidence to sustain the duty demand. Consequently, the demand of duty, interest, and penalties against the appellant was quashed. Additionally, penalties imposed on other appellants were set aside as the relevant Central Excise Rules did not authorize penalties without confiscation of goods or issuance of false invoices enabling ineligible CENVAT credit. The appeal was allowed, and all impugned demands and penalties were annulled.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.