PMLA anticipatory bail requires satisfaction of twin conditions, while predicate-offence protection does not extend to independent money-laundering pr...
School-affiliation charges remain taxable where not directly connected with examinations, while extended limitation requires proof of deliberate tax e...
Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1 to 20 of 96510 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned demand. The...
Demand set aside: extended limitation cannot sustain 01.05.2003-30.09.2004; Rule 9 misapplied without s.4(3)(b)(ii)-(iv) findings and Rule 10 mandates valuation as if unrelated
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned demand. The Tribunal held the extended period of limitation could not sustain the demand for the period 01.05.2003-30.09.2004 in light of controlling SC precedent, rendering confirmation under the extended period untenable. Further, the adjudication erroneously applied Rule 9 of the Valuation Rules by treating oil marketing companies as "related persons" without recording requisite findings under s.4(3)(b)(ii)-(iv) of the Central Excise Act, 1944; Rule 10 requires valuation as if not related unless those statutory relationships are established. For these reasons the demand lacked legal foundation and the appeal was allowed.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned demand. The Tribunal held the extended period of limitation could not sustain the demand for the period 01.05.2003-30.09.2004 in light of controlling SC precedent, rendering confirmation under the extended period untenable. Further, the adjudication erroneously applied Rule 9 of the Valuation Rules by treating oil marketing companies as "related persons" without recording requisite findings under s.4(3)(b)(ii)-(iv) of the Central Excise Act, 1944; Rule 10 requires valuation as if not related unless those statutory relationships are established. For these reasons the demand lacked legal foundation and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
