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 show cause notice issued under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, was time barred, as it was issued beyond the prescribed limitation period without any evidence of willful misstatement or suppression of facts. The Tribunal found no intent of wilful default in the classification dispute concerning polyurethane sheets under Customs Tariff Items 3926 9099 or 3921 1390. Consequently, the extended period demand was invalid, and the impugned order based on the barred SCN was set aside. In accordance with established precedent, once the demand is time barred, the Tribunal need not examine the merits of classification. The appeal was allowed solely on limitation grounds, affirming that actions beyond the limitation period cannot be sustained regardless of the substantive issues involved.
The CESTAT held that the show cause notice issued under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, was time barred, as it was issued beyond the prescribed limitation period without any evidence of willful misstatement or suppression of facts. The Tribunal found no intent of wilful default in the classification dispute concerning polyurethane sheets under Customs Tariff Items 3926 9099 or 3921 1390. Consequently, the extended period demand was invalid, and the impugned order based on the barred SCN was set aside. In accordance with established precedent, once the demand is time barred, the Tribunal need not examine the merits of classification. The appeal was allowed solely on limitation grounds, affirming that actions beyond the limitation period cannot be sustained regardless of the substantive issues involved.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
