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, holding that statements under s.108 of the Customs Act were inadmissible where the procedural safeguards of s.138B were not complied with, and that admission and opportunity for cross-examination are prerequisite to their evidentiary value. The Tribunal further found the proviso to s.3(2) of the Tariff Act inapplicable because both statutory conditions (requirement under the 1976 Act and a s.4A notification) were not simultaneously satisfied; consequently the Commissioner (Appeals)'s reliance on retail price for CVD determination was unsustainable. The impugned order confirming demand under s.28(1) with interest and imposing penalty under s.112(a) was set aside. Appeal allowed.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal, holding that statements under s.108 of the Customs Act were inadmissible where the procedural safeguards of s.138B were not complied with, and that admission and opportunity for cross-examination are prerequisite to their evidentiary value. The Tribunal further found the proviso to s.3(2) of the Tariff Act inapplicable because both statutory conditions (requirement under the 1976 Act and a s.4A notification) were not simultaneously satisfied; consequently the Commissioner (Appeals)'s reliance on retail price for CVD determination was unsustainable. The impugned order confirming demand under s.28(1) with interest and imposing penalty under s.112(a) was set aside. Appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.