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, setting aside the Commissioner's order demanding interest and imposing penalty. It held that interest under s.11AA of the Central Excise Act r/w r.14 of the 2004 Credit Rules was unsustainable since the SCN neither specified when duty became due nor when the CENVAT credit was reversed, nor alleged any violation of r.6 of the 2004 Credit Rules. As the appellant had already reversed CENVAT credit attributable to electricity sold to the State Electricity Board, this reversal was treated as non-availment of credit, eliminating any duty liability under s.11A. Consequently, preconditions for penalty under r.15(1) of the 2004 Credit Rules were not met, and the penalty, including on the basis of alleged suppression, was quashed.
CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner's order demanding interest and imposing penalty. It held that interest under s.11AA of the Central Excise Act r/w r.14 of the 2004 Credit Rules was unsustainable since the SCN neither specified when duty became due nor when the CENVAT credit was reversed, nor alleged any violation of r.6 of the 2004 Credit Rules. As the appellant had already reversed CENVAT credit attributable to electricity sold to the State Electricity Board, this reversal was treated as non-availment of credit, eliminating any duty liability under s.11A. Consequently, preconditions for penalty under r.15(1) of the 2004 Credit Rules were not met, and the penalty, including on the basis of alleged suppression, was quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
