Reversal of input tax credit in proportion to exempt supply: specificity of show-cause notice required; order set aside, fresh proceedings allowed wit...
Benami transaction and beneficial ownership: documentary and circumstantial evidence show payors were true beneficiaries, resulting in PBPTA consequen...
HC upheld the confiscation of imported goods under Section 111(m) CA, 1962, holding that the assessee had admitted multiple valuation errors and accepted the enhanced assessable value determined by the Department. The plea to treat design charges as separately assessable at Nil duty, based on exemption notifications for "plans, drawings and designs," was rejected as inapplicable to design charges forming part of machinery value and contrary to the assessee's earlier admissions under Rule 12. Consequently, invocation of Section 112 for penalty was sustained, with limited discretion available. All substantial questions of law were answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.
HC upheld the confiscation of imported goods under Section 111(m) CA, 1962, holding that the assessee had admitted multiple valuation errors and accepted the enhanced assessable value determined by the Department. The plea to treat design charges as separately assessable at Nil duty, based on exemption notifications for "plans, drawings and designs," was rejected as inapplicable to design charges forming part of machinery value and contrary to the assessee's earlier admissions under Rule 12. Consequently, invocation of Section 112 for penalty was sustained, with limited discretion available. All substantial questions of law were answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
