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 the corrigendum issued for a demand related to shipments dated 10.05.2008 constituted part of the original show cause notice, as adjudication commenced only after its issuance and the appellant's response. However, since the corrigendum was issued beyond the one-year limitation period prescribed under Section 28 of the Customs Act, the demand was time-barred. The Tribunal distinguished this case from instances where an incorrect provision is cited but the claim remains valid, emphasizing that the limitation under Section 28 is strictly one year from the relevant date. Consequently, the Order-in-Original confirming the duty demand with interest on five shipping bills was set aside and the appeal allowed.
The CESTAT held that the corrigendum issued for a demand related to shipments dated 10.05.2008 constituted part of the original show cause notice, as adjudication commenced only after its issuance and the appellant's response. However, since the corrigendum was issued beyond the one-year limitation period prescribed under Section 28 of the Customs Act, the demand was time-barred. The Tribunal distinguished this case from instances where an incorrect provision is cited but the claim remains valid, emphasizing that the limitation under Section 28 is strictly one year from the relevant date. Consequently, the Order-in-Original confirming the duty demand with interest on five shipping bills was set aside and the appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
