Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Vicarious liability for dishonoured company cheques may extend to non-signatory directors where complaints contain foundational responsibility avermen...
Alleged fraudulent diversion of export consignments to a non-notified destination to wrongfully claim Focus Market Scheme benefits could not be established because statements recorded under s.108 Customs Act were inadmissible without compliance with s.138B, including examination as witnesses and opportunity of cross-examination; consequently, those statements could not prove diversion and related manipulation. Confiscation under s.113(d),(g),(i) was held inapplicable since the goods had already been exported pursuant to Let Export Orders prior to initiation of investigation, and s.113 addresses attempts to export improperly; confiscation was therefore set aside. Penalties under s.114(iii) failed as no improper export attempt and no confiscation sustained, and s.114AA penalties also failed due to lack of admissible evidence; appeal allowed. - CESTAT
Alleged fraudulent diversion of export consignments to a non-notified destination to wrongfully claim Focus Market Scheme benefits could not be established because statements recorded under s.108 Customs Act were inadmissible without compliance with s.138B, including examination as witnesses and opportunity of cross-examination; consequently, those statements could not prove diversion and related manipulation. Confiscation under s.113(d),(g),(i) was held inapplicable since the goods had already been exported pursuant to Let Export Orders prior to initiation of investigation, and s.113 addresses attempts to export improperly; confiscation was therefore set aside. Penalties under s.114(iii) failed as no improper export attempt and no confiscation sustained, and s.114AA penalties also failed due to lack of admissible evidence; appeal allowed. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
