Refund claim dismissed as time-barred under s.142(5); non-obstante clause read restrictively, merits not decided, self-assessment payments not mere de...
Assessee's project-completion revenue recognition upheld; income addition deleted under Guidance Note/AS-9 and percentage-completion rules as complian...
CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner's order, and held that the appellant did not engage in clandestine removal of finished goods. The Tribunal found documentary and testimonial evidence established that consignments sent to the appellant's in-house facility were testing samples for process familiarisation and analytical development, not dutiable finished products, and observed the revenue produced no contrary evidence. Discrepancies in weights recorded by courier invoices were attributed to billing weight slabs and did not prove excess quantities. Further, re-availment of previously reversed CENVAT credit upon withdrawal of refund claims was held permissible; Rule 4 of the 2004 Credit Rules did not preclude such re-credit. Appeal allowed.
CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner's order, and held that the appellant did not engage in clandestine removal of finished goods. The Tribunal found documentary and testimonial evidence established that consignments sent to the appellant's in-house facility were testing samples for process familiarisation and analytical development, not dutiable finished products, and observed the revenue produced no contrary evidence. Discrepancies in weights recorded by courier invoices were attributed to billing weight slabs and did not prove excess quantities. Further, re-availment of previously reversed CENVAT credit upon withdrawal of refund claims was held permissible; Rule 4 of the 2004 Credit Rules did not preclude such re-credit. Appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
