Condonation of Delay: directoral disputes and pending company proceedings can constitute reasonable cause, allowing a belated return to be treated as ...
Revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 upheld; faceless assessments subject to revision when AO fails requisite enquiries, remitted for fresh asse...
Limited scope of processing under section 143(1): enhancement without show cause is unsustainable; remand for residency, taxation and TDS verification...
Appellant reimported defective goods initially claiming benefit under Notification No.158/1995 but later sought alternate exemption under Notification No.94/1996; Tribunal held an alternate notification may be claimed despite an earlier, different claim, subject to satisfying the alternate notification's conditions, and relied on a prior CESTAT decision with similar facts. Because the record lacks a finding on whether the appellant met those conditions, the matter is remanded for de novo adjudication with directions to observe principles of natural justice and, if practicable, conclude proceedings within three months.
Appellant reimported defective goods initially claiming benefit under Notification No.158/1995 but later sought alternate exemption under Notification No.94/1996; Tribunal held an alternate notification may be claimed despite an earlier, different claim, subject to satisfying the alternate notification's conditions, and relied on a prior CESTAT decision with similar facts. Because the record lacks a finding on whether the appellant met those conditions, the matter is remanded for de novo adjudication with directions to observe principles of natural justice and, if practicable, conclude proceedings within three months.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.