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...
CESTAT partially allowed the appeals. The Tribunal rejected Revenue's late-raised plea disputing location in notified areas and held Units A and B were within the notification; however, because the exemption under notification no. 50/2003-CE is optional and effective only from the date opted, the Tribunal confirmed central excise demands for Unit A for 1.08.2009-14.03.2010 and for Unit B for 1.07.2009-29.03.2010 (with applicable interest), disallowing the imposition of the optional notification retroactively. Penalties under s.11AC were not sustainable for Units A and B for lack of fraud, collusion or willful suppression, and Rule 26 penalty against Manufacturer C was held unsustainable for want of allegations of confiscation or fictitious invoicing. Appeals allowed in part.
CESTAT partially allowed the appeals. The Tribunal rejected Revenue's late-raised plea disputing location in notified areas and held Units A and B were within the notification; however, because the exemption under notification no. 50/2003-CE is optional and effective only from the date opted, the Tribunal confirmed central excise demands for Unit A for 1.08.2009-14.03.2010 and for Unit B for 1.07.2009-29.03.2010 (with applicable interest), disallowing the imposition of the optional notification retroactively. Penalties under s.11AC were not sustainable for Units A and B for lack of fraud, collusion or willful suppression, and Rule 26 penalty against Manufacturer C was held unsustainable for want of allegations of confiscation or fictitious invoicing. Appeals allowed in part.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
