Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
CESTAT partly allowed the appeal. The tribunal affirmed that Rs.3,73,977 was correctly excluded from assessment under Rule 6(1) of the Central Excise Rules, but upheld a tax demand of Rs.10,75,681 for the post-POTR period and confirmed an additional service-tax liability of Rs.14,84,423 for lack of verifiable CENVAT reversal, all recoverable with interest. Invocation of the extended period was rejected for lack of willful suppression; the demand falls within the normal limitation period. Penalties under ss.77 and 78, FA 1994, were set aside on merits; consequently no waiver under s.80 was necessary. The appeal was therefore partly allowed.
CESTAT partly allowed the appeal. The tribunal affirmed that Rs.3,73,977 was correctly excluded from assessment under Rule 6(1) of the Central Excise Rules, but upheld a tax demand of Rs.10,75,681 for the post-POTR period and confirmed an additional service-tax liability of Rs.14,84,423 for lack of verifiable CENVAT reversal, all recoverable with interest. Invocation of the extended period was rejected for lack of willful suppression; the demand falls within the normal limitation period. Penalties under ss.77 and 78, FA 1994, were set aside on merits; consequently no waiver under s.80 was necessary. The appeal was therefore partly allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
