Merely because during the period in question the appellant was ...

Court Rules Past Activities Not Proven by Recent Clandestine Actions.

July 16, 2014

Case Laws Central Excise AT

Merely because during the period in question the appellant was indulging in clandestine activities, would not ‘ipso facto’ lead to establish that they have been indulging in such activities even during the past period - AT

View Source

← Previous Next →

Merely because during the period in question the appellant was ...

Court Rules Past Activities Not Proven by Recent Clandestine Actions.

July 16, 2014

Case Laws Central Excise AT

You may also like:

Appeal rejected on the ground of delay - Refund of unutilised input tax credit - The Court examined the interpretation of Rule 108(3) of the CGST Rules, which mandated...

The High Court ruled on the constitutional validity of Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017, which was challenged as being ultra vires...

Territorial Jurisdiction - seeking transfer of place of investigation - The petitioner cited inconvenience due to the distance between their headquarters in...

The adjudicating authority is bound to explain the alleged contraventions to the person proceeded against or their legal representatives. Rule 4(4) mandates...

Clandestine removal - cigarettes - The onus to establish such clandestine activities, resulting in confirmation of demand is placed heavily on the Revenue and is...

Wrongly availed Cenvat credit - the activity in question is the activity undertaken by the buyer of the manufacturer that too to ensure his right as he got reserved...

The High Court held that respondent No. 3 cannot avoid deciding the petitioners' application dated 20 December 2023 seeking an advance ruling on the taxability of sale...

Suit for recovery of money on the foot of promissory note - Burden/onus to prove - The High Court found in favor of the plaintiff, overturning the decision of the...

Clandestine removal - Shortage of raw material and finished goods - no verification at the buyer/supplier’s end conducted by the Revenue - mere payment of duty on the...

Maintainability of application u/s 7 - time limitation - The Appellate Tribunal referenced recent Supreme Court judgments, affirming that a liability arising from a...

HC upheld validity of Rule 36(4) of CGST Rules, dismissing constitutional challenge. Court determined Rule 36(4) derives authority from Section 16 of CGST Act and...

Trust's application for registration u/s 12AA cannot be denied solely on ground that it is yet to commence charitable activities. At initial stage, authorities must...

Levy of penalty - Applicability of the substituted rule for imposition of penalty - The Supreme Court sided with the appellant, holding that the substituted rule from...

Construction of buildings for a proposed medical college located in Kanyakumari, Tamil Nadu - cause of action arises in Tamil Nadu - forum shopping by petitioner after...

Clandestine removal - evasion of duty - clearance of branded Khaini - burden to prove on Revenue - Ultimately, the High court concurred with the majority view of the...

Quick Updates: