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 allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty imposed under Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, on the appellant for alleged fraudulent availment and passing on of Cenvat Credit. The tribunal held that the statutory requirements for admissibility of statements under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act were not met, as the mandatory procedure under Section 9D was not followed. The appellant was not found to have supplied goods to the manufacturers as alleged, and there was no evidence of mens rea or deliberate evasion. Additionally, the main noticee had settled the dispute under the SVLDRS scheme, precluding penalty on the appellant. The penalty demand was also barred by limitation due to absence of evidence of collusion or fraudulent intent. Consequently, the penalty order was unsustainable and was quashed.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty imposed under Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, on the appellant for alleged fraudulent availment and passing on of Cenvat Credit. The tribunal held that the statutory requirements for admissibility of statements under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act were not met, as the mandatory procedure under Section 9D was not followed. The appellant was not found to have supplied goods to the manufacturers as alleged, and there was no evidence of mens rea or deliberate evasion. Additionally, the main noticee had settled the dispute under the SVLDRS scheme, precluding penalty on the appellant. The penalty demand was also barred by limitation due to absence of evidence of collusion or fraudulent intent. Consequently, the penalty order was unsustainable and was quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
