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...
Seizure and confiscation under s.111 turned on whether the goods were licitly imported with valid duty-paying documents or were supported by fabricated invoices amounting to mis-declaration/undervaluation. The adjudicating authority verified the alleged supplier and relied on statements recorded under s.108, which were tested through cross-examination, establishing that the purported invoices were never issued and did not relate to the seized goods; hence the documents failed to prove lawful import or local procurement. Confiscation under s.111 and penalties under s.112 were sustained as the adjudication complied with natural justice and the evidence conclusively supported the department's case, resulting in dismissal of the appeals. - CESTAT
Seizure and confiscation under s.111 turned on whether the goods were licitly imported with valid duty-paying documents or were supported by fabricated invoices amounting to mis-declaration/undervaluation. The adjudicating authority verified the alleged supplier and relied on statements recorded under s.108, which were tested through cross-examination, establishing that the purported invoices were never issued and did not relate to the seized goods; hence the documents failed to prove lawful import or local procurement. Confiscation under s.111 and penalties under s.112 were sustained as the adjudication complied with natural justice and the evidence conclusively supported the department's case, resulting in dismissal of the appeals. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
