Income Disclosure Scheme immunity and search-material requirements barred further share-transaction additions in unabated assessments under section 15...
Toy balloon tariff classification: functional heading prevails over residual rubber and festive article headings, supporting penalties for deliberate ...
Customs valuation using comparable contemporaneous imports can displace declared value, while missing speaking orders require pursuit before competent...
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 
of 4830 
Join Channel 
