<?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 (9) TMI 522 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412177</link>
    <description>For the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, duty liability is treated as quantified when the amount payable is recorded in writing before the cut-off date; written admissions in a search panchnama and the director&#039;s statement satisfied that requirement here, so the declaration could not be rejected for want of quantification. The HC also held that the CBIC circular clarifying that admitted duty liability recorded during enquiry, investigation or audit amounts to quantification was binding on subordinate revenue authorities administering the Scheme, and the Designated Committee could not apply a narrower test. The rejection was therefore contrary to the Scheme and the circular.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Mar 2022 16:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=655495" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (9) TMI 522 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412177</link>
      <description>For the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, duty liability is treated as quantified when the amount payable is recorded in writing before the cut-off date; written admissions in a search panchnama and the director&#039;s statement satisfied that requirement here, so the declaration could not be rejected for want of quantification. The HC also held that the CBIC circular clarifying that admitted duty liability recorded during enquiry, investigation or audit amounts to quantification was binding on subordinate revenue authorities administering the Scheme, and the Designated Committee could not apply a narrower test. The rejection was therefore contrary to the Scheme and the circular.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412177</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>