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, holding that the assessee was entitled to CENVAT credit. The Tribunal found that payment made prior to initiation of proceedings and imposition of only 1% penalty evidenced settlement under Section 73(4A) rather than adjudicated fraud, suppression or wilful misstatement; consequently Rule 9(1)(bb) CCR 2004 did not bar credit. Given that alleged excess credit remained unutilised during the period and no prejudice to the Exchequer was shown, interest could not be demanded and recovery proceedings for interest were dropped. Appeal allowed.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding that the assessee was entitled to CENVAT credit. The Tribunal found that payment made prior to initiation of proceedings and imposition of only 1% penalty evidenced settlement under Section 73(4A) rather than adjudicated fraud, suppression or wilful misstatement; consequently Rule 9(1)(bb) CCR 2004 did not bar credit. Given that alleged excess credit remained unutilised during the period and no prejudice to the Exchequer was shown, interest could not be demanded and recovery proceedings for interest were dropped. Appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
