Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
