Reassessment under s.148A held valid; s.69 additions totaling Rs.7,00,000 deleted after acceptable contemporaneous explanations for property investmen...
Adjudication set aside; Rule 9 valuation based on internet engineer report quashed for Rule 3(4) non-compliance; Section 138B cross-examination requir...
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 4826 
Join Channel 
