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 held that the appellant is not entitled to exemption under Notification No. 18/2009-ST because the requisite conditions and original documentary proof (consignment note/invoices/bills/challans, agreement with the overseas commission agent, and shipping bill disclosure) were not produced; mere filing of EXP-1/EXP-2 was insufficient. The Tribunal found the demands for the periods Oct 2009-Mar 2010 and Apr 2010-Sep 2010 to be within the limitation period and therefore upheld the demands under Section 73. The demand for interest was sustained as compensatory. However, the penalty imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 was set aside. Appeal allowed in part.
CESTAT held that the appellant is not entitled to exemption under Notification No. 18/2009-ST because the requisite conditions and original documentary proof (consignment note/invoices/bills/challans, agreement with the overseas commission agent, and shipping bill disclosure) were not produced; mere filing of EXP-1/EXP-2 was insufficient. The Tribunal found the demands for the periods Oct 2009-Mar 2010 and Apr 2010-Sep 2010 to be within the limitation period and therefore upheld the demands under Section 73. The demand for interest was sustained as compensatory. However, the penalty imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 was set aside. Appeal allowed in part.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
