Export obligation removed by notification, customs duty demand invalidated; penalties under s.112 and s.114AA quashed due to inadmissible s.108 statem...
Customs officers must wear and use department-issued body-worn cameras when clearing passenger baggage, with daily secure transfer and 30-day retentio...
Page of 4827
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
10021 to 10040 of 96536 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4827 
Join Channel 
