Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
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.
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.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.