Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Condonation of delay permits statutory appeal restoration where inadequate service explanation prevented consideration of reassessment and taxable-inc...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
121 to 140 of 95955 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 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 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
