International transaction benchmarking restricts transfer pricing adjustments to associated-enterprise dealings, while functional comparability govern...
Joint development agreements defer taxable transfer where possession lacks part performance, while completed flats determine consideration and exempti...
Passenger baggage re-export requires true declaration and cannot be granted indirectly through discretionary redemption of undeclared prohibited goods...
CESTAT allowed the appeals filed by various anonymous tile manufacturers and associated noticees, setting aside the entire demand of central excise duty, interest and penalties arising from alleged clandestine manufacture and removal of ceramic/vitrified tiles and sanitaryware. The Tribunal held that the Dept. failed to discharge its burden of proof, as the case rested almost entirely on uncorroborated third-party statements, scribbled bank entries and assumptions, without seizure of offending goods, excess stock, corroborative transport documents, or evidence of excess raw material, power consumption or labour. CESTAT also noted non-compliance with s. 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944, since key statements were neither properly examined in chief nor subjected to cross-examination. Finding the investigation slipshod and the evidentiary standard of preponderance of probability unmet, CESTAT ruled that the allegation of clandestine removal was unsustainable, rendering all consequential demands and penalties invalid.
CESTAT allowed the appeals filed by various anonymous tile manufacturers and associated noticees, setting aside the entire demand of central excise duty, interest and penalties arising from alleged clandestine manufacture and removal of ceramic/vitrified tiles and sanitaryware. The Tribunal held that the Dept. failed to discharge its burden of proof, as the case rested almost entirely on uncorroborated third-party statements, scribbled bank entries and assumptions, without seizure of offending goods, excess stock, corroborative transport documents, or evidence of excess raw material, power consumption or labour. CESTAT also noted non-compliance with s. 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944, since key statements were neither properly examined in chief nor subjected to cross-examination. Finding the investigation slipshod and the evidentiary standard of preponderance of probability unmet, CESTAT ruled that the allegation of clandestine removal was unsustainable, rendering all consequential demands and penalties invalid.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
