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...
Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Automated Free Sale and Commerce Certificates enable paperless processing while retaining risk-based manual verification for selected exporter applica...
Page of 4830
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96587 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.