Destruction of the sample - Only for the sake of absence of a ...

Court Rules: No Adverse Inference for Missing Sample Destruction Date Without Evidence of Clearance or Sale.

November 27, 2015

Case Laws Central Excise AT

Destruction of the sample - Only for the sake of absence of a column mentioning the date of destruction of the sample, without there being any finding as to clearance or sale of any sample products by the assessee, no adverse inference can be drawn based on presumptions and assumptions - AT

View Source

← Previous Next →

Destruction of the sample - Only for the sake of absence of a ...

Court Rules: No Adverse Inference for Missing Sample Destruction Date Without Evidence of Clearance or Sale.

November 27, 2015

Case Laws Central Excise AT

You may also like:

Bogus sundry creditors - Whether CIT(A) had clearly violated the provisions of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, while admitting additional evidence? - The High...

Addition u/s 68 - unexplained cash credit - Onus to prove - The High court noted that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including bank statements, cash-flow...

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

Unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - Bogus share capital and share premium - Since, the present assessment year is 2008-09, there is no onus on the assessee to prove the...

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...

Seizure of tobacco and loss of the same due to file - Liability of central excise department - Whether the Trial Court has committed error of facts and law in passing...

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...

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...

CENVAT Credit - input services - the scheme of the Act read with the Rules has to be read harmoniously. If for something missing in the rules, the cenvat credit is...

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...

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the Petitioners accused of using false documents and abetment. Citing legal precedents like u/s BHADRESH BIPINBHAI SHETH V....

The Appellate Court exceeded its jurisdiction u/s 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by setting aside an arbitral award that had already been confirmed...

Levy of penalty - taking CENVAT Credit irregularly - it is the contention of the Assessee that there is some element of discretion available in the adjudicating officer...

Supplementary refund of unutilized input tax credit pertaining to Compensatory Cess - Section 164 of the GST Act empowers the Government to frame rules. Refund of...

The trial court erroneously invoked the presumption u/s 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, without considering the contradictions in the evidence of the...

Quick Updates: