Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The Tribunal held that the transaction value declared by the appellant could not be rejected on the basis of unrelated pro forma invoices and uncorroborated statements; consequently reassessment and enhanced valuation were unsustainable. Differential duty demands in respect of blankets were quashed for lack of contemporaneous corroborative evidence. Orders of confiscation and redemption fines were revoked. Invocation of the extended limitation period under Section 28 and imposition of penalties under Sections 112 and 114A were held unwarranted for want of requisite suppression, misdeclaration or intent, and those penalties were set aside. Appeal disposed accordingly.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The Tribunal held that the transaction value declared by the appellant could not be rejected on the basis of unrelated pro forma invoices and uncorroborated statements; consequently reassessment and enhanced valuation were unsustainable. Differential duty demands in respect of blankets were quashed for lack of contemporaneous corroborative evidence. Orders of confiscation and redemption fines were revoked. Invocation of the extended limitation period under Section 28 and imposition of penalties under Sections 112 and 114A were held unwarranted for want of requisite suppression, misdeclaration or intent, and those penalties were set aside. Appeal disposed accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
