Attachment and proclamation of sale of immovable property: limitation treated from financial year end; proclamation held within period, petition dismi...
Second Schedule attachment and validity of a post-notice mortgage: TRO cannot declare mortgage void ab initio; sale and appropriation allowed thereaft...
Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Extended limitation for recovery of alleged inadmissible CENVAT credit was rejected because the assessee had disclosed total credit in statutory returns and was not legally required to furnish invoice-wise particulars; with documents already filed with a refund claim, suppression was not established, so demand beyond the normal period was set aside, while demand within limitation for Apr-Sep 2011 survived. Credit on outdoor catering for Apr-Sep 2011 was disallowed due to post-1-4-2011 statutory exclusion of such services as employee personal consumption. Credit was also disallowed where invoices lacked mandatory service description under Rule 9(2), and for accommodation and gym equipment AMC as excluded personal-use services. Alleged double-demand required factual verification and was remanded; Section 78 penalty was set aside. - CESTAT
Extended limitation for recovery of alleged inadmissible CENVAT credit was rejected because the assessee had disclosed total credit in statutory returns and was not legally required to furnish invoice-wise particulars; with documents already filed with a refund claim, suppression was not established, so demand beyond the normal period was set aside, while demand within limitation for Apr-Sep 2011 survived. Credit on outdoor catering for Apr-Sep 2011 was disallowed due to post-1-4-2011 statutory exclusion of such services as employee personal consumption. Credit was also disallowed where invoices lacked mandatory service description under Rule 9(2), and for accommodation and gym equipment AMC as excluded personal-use services. Alleged double-demand required factual verification and was remanded; Section 78 penalty was set aside. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4830 
Join Channel 
