Admissibility of Investigation Statements requires witness examination before the adjudicating authority; otherwise statements cannot sustain a penalt...
Transaction value and connected person treatment in excise valuation: proprietary concerns not inter connected undertakings, relief on valuation and c...
Appointment of Registrars as adjudicating officers under Companies Act reallocates territorial jurisdiction and sets appeal route to Regional Director...
Composite supply of drilling services and site specific chemicals characterised as composite supply; prior advance rulings set aside, tax rate left op...
Classification of imported viewing/smart cards was disputed; CESTAT held classification is a matter of opinion and Videocon's self-assessment under CTI 8523 52 90 was correct, setting aside re classification to CTI 8529 90 90. The Tribunal found no valid basis to invoke extended limitation under section 28(4) and therefore quashed the demand. Statements recorded under section 108 were inadmissible because they were not admitted following section 138B procedure, and consequential confiscation and all penalties (including section 114AA and redemption fine requests) were set aside.
Classification of imported viewing/smart cards was disputed; CESTAT held classification is a matter of opinion and Videocon's self-assessment under CTI 8523 52 90 was correct, setting aside re classification to CTI 8529 90 90. The Tribunal found no valid basis to invoke extended limitation under section 28(4) and therefore quashed the demand. Statements recorded under section 108 were inadmissible because they were not admitted following section 138B procedure, and consequential confiscation and all penalties (including section 114AA and redemption fine requests) were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.