Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
The Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked because the appellant had furnished records, the department knew of the takeover and examined the documents, and suppression or fraud was not established; the duty demand was therefore time-barred. It further held that the area-based exemption was wrongly denied, since the notification did not prohibit manufacture of new products, expansion with new machinery, shifting of the unit within the eligible area, or transfer of ownership. Statements recorded under section 14 were inadmissible because the section 9D procedure was not followed, and the penalties under rules 25 and 26 also failed for want of the required factual findings.
The Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked because the appellant had furnished records, the department knew of the takeover and examined the documents, and suppression or fraud was not established; the duty demand was therefore time-barred. It further held that the area-based exemption was wrongly denied, since the notification did not prohibit manufacture of new products, expansion with new machinery, shifting of the unit within the eligible area, or transfer of ownership. Statements recorded under section 14 were inadmissible because the section 9D procedure was not followed, and the penalties under rules 25 and 26 also failed for want of the required factual findings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
