Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
CESTAT allowed the appeal of M/s X against confirmation of anti-dumping duty, interest and penalty on import of injection moulding machines by invoking the extended limitation under s.28 of the Customs Act and penalty under s.114A. The Tribunal held that the statutory conditions for invoking s.114A and the extended period under s.28 are in pari materia and operate conjointly. Once the Commissioner (A) himself held that penalty under s.114A was not invocable, it necessarily followed that the requisite elements of fraud, suppression or wilful misstatement to trigger the extended period under s.28 were absent. Consequently, the extended limitation and resultant demand, interest and penalty were unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside to that extent.
CESTAT allowed the appeal of M/s X against confirmation of anti-dumping duty, interest and penalty on import of injection moulding machines by invoking the extended limitation under s.28 of the Customs Act and penalty under s.114A. The Tribunal held that the statutory conditions for invoking s.114A and the extended period under s.28 are in pari materia and operate conjointly. Once the Commissioner (A) himself held that penalty under s.114A was not invocable, it necessarily followed that the requisite elements of fraud, suppression or wilful misstatement to trigger the extended period under s.28 were absent. Consequently, the extended limitation and resultant demand, interest and penalty were unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside to that extent.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
