Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1 to 20 of 95872 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 appeals, set aside the impugned order and quashed penalties and confiscation measures. The Tribunal held penalties under s.114(iii) and s.114AA could not be sustained against certain partners and firms because there was no evidence of their knowledge, collusion or acts rendering goods liable to confiscation under s.113; the culpable acts were attributed to the tug's master and a supervisor who procured port clearance and effected supplies without filing manifests or shipping bills. The owner of the tug was absolved of liability and the confiscation and redemption fine under s.115(2) were held unsustainable. The Commissioner's order dated August 2015 was set aside and the appeals allowed.
CESTAT allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned order and quashed penalties and confiscation measures. The Tribunal held penalties under s.114(iii) and s.114AA could not be sustained against certain partners and firms because there was no evidence of their knowledge, collusion or acts rendering goods liable to confiscation under s.113; the culpable acts were attributed to the tug's master and a supervisor who procured port clearance and effected supplies without filing manifests or shipping bills. The owner of the tug was absolved of liability and the confiscation and redemption fine under s.115(2) were held unsustainable. The Commissioner's order dated August 2015 was set aside and the appeals allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
