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...
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.