Electronic WhatsApp evidence without authentication or independent corroboration cannot sustain an unexplained-investment addition based on third-part...
Mutual current-account transactions excluded from deemed dividend treatment where no fresh borrowing arose; unsupported unsecured-loan addition also f...
CESTAT allowed the appeal in part, set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for fresh decision. The Tribunal held that goods classifiable under Chapter 31 attract the nil rate under the notification unless it can be established that they are "clearly not to be used" in manufacture of other fertilisers; mere suspicion or probability is insufficient to deny exemption. The Tribunal found lower authorities misapplied the amended scope of the notification and that on the recorded facts it could not conclude exclusion applied. The show-cause notice is restored for reconsideration in light of the correct legal interpretation and the appellant's submissions.
CESTAT allowed the appeal in part, set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for fresh decision. The Tribunal held that goods classifiable under Chapter 31 attract the nil rate under the notification unless it can be established that they are "clearly not to be used" in manufacture of other fertilisers; mere suspicion or probability is insufficient to deny exemption. The Tribunal found lower authorities misapplied the amended scope of the notification and that on the recorded facts it could not conclude exclusion applied. The show-cause notice is restored for reconsideration in light of the correct legal interpretation and the appellant's submissions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.