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...
Burden of proof rested on the Revenue to prove imported items were Open Cells rather than LED/LCD panels; the Revenue failed to discharge this burden given conflicting expert opinions and lack of adversarial testing of experts, so the tribunal held the imports qualified as LED/LCD panels and were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-Cus (S.No. 432). The tribunal further held extended limitation under section 28(4) inapplicable due to absence of collusion or suppression, and set aside confiscation, redemption fine and penalty under section 114A, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.
Burden of proof rested on the Revenue to prove imported items were Open Cells rather than LED/LCD panels; the Revenue failed to discharge this burden given conflicting expert opinions and lack of adversarial testing of experts, so the tribunal held the imports qualified as LED/LCD panels and were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-Cus (S.No. 432). The tribunal further held extended limitation under section 28(4) inapplicable due to absence of collusion or suppression, and set aside confiscation, redemption fine and penalty under section 114A, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
