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 of a 100% EOU manufacturer against demands raised by the Department for recovery of refund of accumulated CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal held that the appellants were entitled to claim refund for inputs used in exported finished goods, and the Department could not invoke the extended period of limitation on grounds of suppression, mis-declaration, or fraud, as all relevant facts had been previously examined by the Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals). Citing Supreme Court precedent, the Tribunal found no new evidence justifying extended period invocation. Consequently, the impugned order confirming demands and penalties was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, affirming the appellants' eligibility for refund without liability for extended period demands.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal of a 100% EOU manufacturer against demands raised by the Department for recovery of refund of accumulated CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal held that the appellants were entitled to claim refund for inputs used in exported finished goods, and the Department could not invoke the extended period of limitation on grounds of suppression, mis-declaration, or fraud, as all relevant facts had been previously examined by the Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals). Citing Supreme Court precedent, the Tribunal found no new evidence justifying extended period invocation. Consequently, the impugned order confirming demands and penalties was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, affirming the appellants' eligibility for refund without liability for extended period demands.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
