Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Section 9D compliance is mandatory before statements recorded under section 14 of the Central Excise Act can be relied on; where the maker is not first examined and the statement is not admitted in accordance with section 9D, denial of cross-examination does not cure the defect, and such statements cannot support the demand. Clandestine manufacture and removal must be proved by positive, clinching corroborative evidence; in the absence of documentary support, excess inputs, unrecorded production, stock discrepancy, or transport records, the allegation failed. Penalty under rule 26 also could not stand without a finding that the goods were liable to confiscation, so the duty demand and penalties were set aside.
Section 9D compliance is mandatory before statements recorded under section 14 of the Central Excise Act can be relied on; where the maker is not first examined and the statement is not admitted in accordance with section 9D, denial of cross-examination does not cure the defect, and such statements cannot support the demand. Clandestine manufacture and removal must be proved by positive, clinching corroborative evidence; in the absence of documentary support, excess inputs, unrecorded production, stock discrepancy, or transport records, the allegation failed. Penalty under rule 26 also could not stand without a finding that the goods were liable to confiscation, so the duty demand and penalties were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
