PMLA anticipatory bail requires satisfaction of twin conditions, while predicate-offence protection does not extend to independent money-laundering pr...
School-affiliation charges remain taxable where not directly connected with examinations, while extended limitation requires proof of deliberate tax e...
Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1 to 20 of 96510 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, setting aside the ex parte Order-in-Original on grounds of violation of principles of natural justice and absence of corroborative evidence of clandestine manufacture and removal. The Tribunal held that non-supply of relied-upon seized documents, despite repeated written requests, denied the assessee effective opportunity to contest the show cause notice. It further found that the demand of Rs. 16,65,594/- was based solely on private rough estimate books without verification of manufacture, transport, receipt of goods by alleged customers, or flow of consideration. Consequently, the duty demand, interest and penalties on the assessee were quashed. Penalties imposed on the Director and Supervisor under Rule 26 were also set aside for lack of evidence of their involvement.
CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside the ex parte Order-in-Original on grounds of violation of principles of natural justice and absence of corroborative evidence of clandestine manufacture and removal. The Tribunal held that non-supply of relied-upon seized documents, despite repeated written requests, denied the assessee effective opportunity to contest the show cause notice. It further found that the demand of Rs. 16,65,594/- was based solely on private rough estimate books without verification of manufacture, transport, receipt of goods by alleged customers, or flow of consideration. Consequently, the duty demand, interest and penalties on the assessee were quashed. Penalties imposed on the Director and Supervisor under Rule 26 were also set aside for lack of evidence of their involvement.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.