<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2021 (7) TMI 465 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409623</link>
    <description>Rejection of a declaration under the Sabka Viswas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 could not stand where it was made by a one-line non-speaking order and the record showed prior quantification of duty for Scheme purposes. The Court read the Scheme&#039;s quantification requirement with the CBIC circular, noting that in enquiry or investigation matters, a written communication or an admission recorded during investigation could constitute quantification if made on or before 30 June 2019. As the petitioner&#039;s recorded statement indicated an admitted duty liability, the designated committee had to examine the disputed amount and the petitioner&#039;s SSI status and then pass a reasoned order. The rejection was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2021 10:36:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=649468" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (7) TMI 465 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409623</link>
      <description>Rejection of a declaration under the Sabka Viswas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 could not stand where it was made by a one-line non-speaking order and the record showed prior quantification of duty for Scheme purposes. The Court read the Scheme&#039;s quantification requirement with the CBIC circular, noting that in enquiry or investigation matters, a written communication or an admission recorded during investigation could constitute quantification if made on or before 30 June 2019. As the petitioner&#039;s recorded statement indicated an admitted duty liability, the designated committee had to examine the disputed amount and the petitioner&#039;s SSI status and then pass a reasoned order. The rejection was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409623</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>