Authentication of paper assessment orders upheld, while qualifying repairs, consumables and vendor advance write-offs remain deductible business claim...
Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Tariff classification of vehicle gear components follows the specific gearing entry, displacing motor-vehicle parts classification and related liabili...
Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Page of 4788
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
421 to 440 of 95749 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, holding that the ISD's distribution of CENVAT/ITC to the recipient unit was lawful; mere technical defects in supplier invoices (addressed to another unit or absence of non-essential particulars) and reliance on internal CWIP ledgers do not suffice to disallow credit where genuineness is not disproved and corroborative evidence (payments, vouchers, performance proof) exists. The Tribunal found no findings of fabricated invoices, shell suppliers or circular payments and concluded the Department failed to establish the two statutory conditions under Rule 7/ISD provisions. Further, invocation of the extended limitation period was not established, rendering the demand time-barred. Consequently the demand, interest and penalties were vacated.
CESTAT allowed the appeal, holding that the ISD's distribution of CENVAT/ITC to the recipient unit was lawful; mere technical defects in supplier invoices (addressed to another unit or absence of non-essential particulars) and reliance on internal CWIP ledgers do not suffice to disallow credit where genuineness is not disproved and corroborative evidence (payments, vouchers, performance proof) exists. The Tribunal found no findings of fabricated invoices, shell suppliers or circular payments and concluded the Department failed to establish the two statutory conditions under Rule 7/ISD provisions. Further, invocation of the extended limitation period was not established, rendering the demand time-barred. Consequently the demand, interest and penalties were vacated.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
