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...
Actual-user and non-transferability conditions under Notification No. 32/2005-Cus. required the claimant to prove eligibility; the Tribunal found appellants failed this burden because endorsed licence details were missing, job-workers denied receipt, addresses were false or non-existent, contemporaneous records were absent, and arrangements indicated high-seas sales and third party control, cumulatively supporting diversion of duty free imports rather than bona fide use. The principle that exemption is an exception and claimants must produce the best evidence was applied, sustaining demand, confiscation and penalties, but the penalty proposed under section 112 was set aside for procedural infirmity following the jurisdictional High Court.
Actual-user and non-transferability conditions under Notification No. 32/2005-Cus. required the claimant to prove eligibility; the Tribunal found appellants failed this burden because endorsed licence details were missing, job-workers denied receipt, addresses were false or non-existent, contemporaneous records were absent, and arrangements indicated high-seas sales and third party control, cumulatively supporting diversion of duty free imports rather than bona fide use. The principle that exemption is an exception and claimants must produce the best evidence was applied, sustaining demand, confiscation and penalties, but the penalty proposed under section 112 was set aside for procedural infirmity following the jurisdictional High Court.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
