Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
CESTAT allowed the appeal of the Appellant-Company and set aside the impugned order confirming duty demand for alleged clandestine removal of sponge iron. It held that proceedings were vitiated as they were founded solely on statements recorded under s.14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, without compliance with the mandatory procedure under s.9D, rendering such statements devoid of evidentiary value. Further, computer printouts seized from a third party, lacking certification as mandated under the Evidence Act and s.36B of the Central Excise Act, were held inadmissible. CESTAT also noted the complete absence of corroborative evidence such as stock discrepancy, transport documents, or statements of vehicle owners/drivers. Consequently, the demand, interest, and penalties were held unsustainable in law.
CESTAT allowed the appeal of the Appellant-Company and set aside the impugned order confirming duty demand for alleged clandestine removal of sponge iron. It held that proceedings were vitiated as they were founded solely on statements recorded under s.14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, without compliance with the mandatory procedure under s.9D, rendering such statements devoid of evidentiary value. Further, computer printouts seized from a third party, lacking certification as mandated under the Evidence Act and s.36B of the Central Excise Act, were held inadmissible. CESTAT also noted the complete absence of corroborative evidence such as stock discrepancy, transport documents, or statements of vehicle owners/drivers. Consequently, the demand, interest, and penalties were held unsustainable in law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.