Retrospective application of beneficial circulars upheld, binding officers and granting post adjudication relief where adjudication occurred after cir...
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...
Panchnamas drawn during search were held unreliable because the panch witnesses were not shown to be local inhabitants, no reason was recorded for using distant witnesses, and they were not examined or made available for cross-examination. Statements recorded under section 14 were also treated as inadmissible because the mandatory procedure under section 9D was not followed before relying on them in adjudication. Once the panchnamas, statements and diary were excluded, there was no sufficient evidence to prove that the appellant was the manufacturer of the alleged clandestinely produced pan masala and gutkha or liable for duty, interest, penalty or confiscation. The demand for the later period failed, and the department's appeal for the earlier period was also dismissed.
Panchnamas drawn during search were held unreliable because the panch witnesses were not shown to be local inhabitants, no reason was recorded for using distant witnesses, and they were not examined or made available for cross-examination. Statements recorded under section 14 were also treated as inadmissible because the mandatory procedure under section 9D was not followed before relying on them in adjudication. Once the panchnamas, statements and diary were excluded, there was no sufficient evidence to prove that the appellant was the manufacturer of the alleged clandestinely produced pan masala and gutkha or liable for duty, interest, penalty or confiscation. The demand for the later period failed, and the department's appeal for the earlier period was also dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
