Export obligation removed by notification, customs duty demand invalidated; penalties under s.112 and s.114AA quashed due to inadmissible s.108 statem...
Customs officers must wear and use department-issued body-worn cameras when clearing passenger baggage, with daily secure transfer and 30-day retentio...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
10041 to 10060 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
