Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
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 4821 
Join Channel 
