Expenses for overseas film shooting treated as services availed outside India, so no reverse charge service tax liability; cenvat reversals and penalt...
Electricity consumptionbased clandestine production estimates under the repealed Central Excise Act found insufficient; demand quashed and appeals all...
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 4828 
Join Channel 
