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 set aside the impugned demand of central excise duty, interest and penalties arising from alleged clandestine removal and alleged shortages, holding that the adjudicating authority failed to verify physical stock-taking/weighment records, relied on uncorroborated private handwritten notes without compliance with statutory admissibility safeguards, and admitted statements without observance of mandatory evidentiary procedure. The Tribunal found absence of tangible corroborative evidence of clandestine clearance, no seizure or identified buyers, and no proof of reversalable credit misuse; accordingly the duty demand is unsustainable. Penalty imposed under r.26 CER, 2002 on the company's director is quashed. Appeal disposed of.
CESTAT set aside the impugned demand of central excise duty, interest and penalties arising from alleged clandestine removal and alleged shortages, holding that the adjudicating authority failed to verify physical stock-taking/weighment records, relied on uncorroborated private handwritten notes without compliance with statutory admissibility safeguards, and admitted statements without observance of mandatory evidentiary procedure. The Tribunal found absence of tangible corroborative evidence of clandestine clearance, no seizure or identified buyers, and no proof of reversalable credit misuse; accordingly the duty demand is unsustainable. Penalty imposed under r.26 CER, 2002 on the company's director is quashed. Appeal disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.