Just a moment...
We've upgraded AI Search on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:
1. Basic
• Quick overview summary answering your query with references
• Category-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI
2. Advanced
• Includes everything in Basic
• Detailed report covering:
- Overview Summary
- Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars]
- Relevant Case Laws
- Tariff / Classification / HSN
- Expert views from TaxTMI
- Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy
• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.
Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:
Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned demand and penalties. The Tribunal held that the duty liability and clandestine removal allegations rested solely on retracted statements, rough private diary entries and other private documents seized during search, none of which constituted admissible or corroborative evidence of manufacture and clearance. The appellant-company's input-output ratio was undisputed and there was no evidence showing receipt of the alleged additional 1,965 MT of raw material. Consequently the confirmed excise demand was unsustainable and annulled; penalty under Rule 25 read with s.11AC and penalties against the individual directors under Rule 26 were also set aside.