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...
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.