{"id":269667,"date":"2022-07-06T15:00:28","date_gmt":"2022-07-06T09:30:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=269667"},"modified":"2025-05-15T12:01:58","modified_gmt":"2025-05-15T06:31:58","slug":"karnataka-high-court-no-suppression-of-material-facts-if-show-cause-notice-issued-is-based-on-balance-sheet-appeal-denied","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/07\/06\/karnataka-high-court-no-suppression-of-material-facts-if-show-cause-notice-issued-is-based-on-balance-sheet-appeal-denied\/","title":{"rendered":"Karnataka High Court | No suppression of material facts if show cause notice issued is based on balance sheet; Appeal denied"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

   <\/p>\n

Karnataka High Court<\/span>: A Division Bench of PS Dinesh and Anant Pamana Hegde, JJ. rejected the appeal filed by Commissioner of Central Tax and considered that Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘CESTAT') was right in dropping the demand for extended period mainly on the ground that the details of trading were available in the balance sheet of the respondent during the relevant period and that there was much confusion during the relevant period as to whether credit could be availed in respect of trading activities.<\/p>\n

ABB Limited (‘respondent') was engaged in the business of manufacture and clearance of turbo chargers, electric motor, transformer etc. falling under Chapter 85 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (‘CETA, 1985') and provides taxable output services such as management, maintenance, repairs etc. and for the purpose of payment of service tax they have obtained service tax registration.<\/p>\n

Based on the intelligence report, a show cause notice was issued stating that apart from manufacturing, respondent was also engaged in trading of electrical goods under the trade name ‘ABB' and it had wrongly utilized the CENVAT credit in relation to the trading activity and was further called upon to show cause as to why Rs.5,68,00,000\/- should not be treated as wrongful availment of CENVAT credit and recovered from it under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with proviso to Section 73<\/a> of the Finance Act, 1994<\/a> and proviso to Section 11-A<\/a> of the Central Excise Act, 1944<\/a>.<\/p>\n

A reply was filed by the respondent holding that the CENVAT credit was inadmissible for trading activities, and it was disallowed. Further directions were issued for appropriation of the said sum in the CENVAT account, and it was paid under protest. On appeal, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘CESTAT') held that there was no suppression of facts on the part of the assessee with an intent to evade payment of tax and it confirmed the demand only for normal period i.e., disallowed appropriation of the payment made under protest and interest at applicable rate and penalty of equal sum holding that there was no evasion of payment of tax and set-aside the demand for the extended period of limitation and confirmed the demand only for the normal period. The penalty relating to the normal period was also set aside during the relevant period on the grounds that there was much confusion on the availment of credit for trading activities. Aggrieved by the same, the revenue ‘appellant' has filed the instant appeal.<\/p>\n

Counsel for appellant Adv. Jeevan J Neeralgi, submitted that the assessee did not declare its trading activities in the returns and based on the intelligence report, the department learnt about the trading activities of the assessee. The findings recorded by the CESTAT in its order that the department was well aware of the trading activity of the respondent are factually incorrect. Though the said finding is a matter of fact, since it is perverse on the face of it, it amounts to a question of law.<\/p>\n

Counsel for respondent Adv. Ravi Raghavan submitted that the show cause notice issued was on the basis of the balance sheet wherein all activities of the assessee were truly declared. Therefore, there was no suppression of material facts. Further, it is trite law that when an assessee has acted in good faith, invoking an extended period of limitation is not tenable.<\/p>\n

Reliance was placed on Asst. Commissioner of GST<\/i> v. Shriram Value Services Pvt. Ltd.<\/i>, (2019) 368 ELT 928 Mad. wherein it was observed<\/p>\n

“it is clear that the position was clarified by the Government by insertion of Explanation only with effect from 1-4-2011 that the trading activity will be Exempted Services. The Explanation is clarificatory in nature and can be held to be applicable even for the past period. Thus, at the relevant period of time. Viz., from April 2009 to March 2011, the Assessee was, obviously, under bona fide belief in view of the conflicting decisions of the Tribunals during that period and taking the trading activity as Exempted Services, availed the CENVAT Credit which is sought to be reversed and recovered by the Department invoking the extended period of limitation. Such a bona fide belief cannot be held to be done with ulterior purpose for evading the Duty and therefore, the extended period of limitation would not be available to the Revenue Authority in view of the aforesaid decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court”.<\/p>\n

The Court held that the substantial questions raised by the Revenue are answered in favour of the assessee. Hence, the appeal was dismissed with no costs. dismissed. No costs.”<\/p>\n

[Commissioner of Central Tax v. ABB Limited, 2022 SCC OnLine Kar 1132<\/a>, decided on 01-06-2022<\/span>]<\/p>\n

*Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Karnataka High Court: A Division Bench of PS Dinesh and Anant Pamana Hegde, JJ. rejected the appeal filed by Commissioner <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":269649,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[32299,50049,6651,28334,50048,18281],"class_list":["post-269667","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-balance-sheet","tag-central-tax","tag-cestat","tag-karnataka-high-court","tag-no-suppression-of-material-facts","tag-show-cause-notice"],"yoast_head":"\nKarnataka High Court | No suppression of material facts if show cause notice issued is based on balance sheet; Appeal denied | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"appeal filed by Commissioner of Central Tax and considered that CESTAT was right in dropping the demand for extended period\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/07\/06\/karnataka-high-court-no-suppression-of-material-facts-if-show-cause-notice-issued-is-based-on-balance-sheet-appeal-denied\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Karnataka High Court | No suppression of material facts if show cause notice issued is based on balance sheet; Appeal denied\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"appeal filed by Commissioner of Central Tax and considered that CESTAT was right in dropping the demand for extended period\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/07\/06\/karnataka-high-court-no-suppression-of-material-facts-if-show-cause-notice-issued-is-based-on-balance-sheet-appeal-denied\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2022-07-06T09:30:28+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-05-15T06:31:58+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/karnataka_high_court.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1331\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"888\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/07\/06\/karnataka-high-court-no-suppression-of-material-facts-if-show-cause-notice-issued-is-based-on-balance-sheet-appeal-denied\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/07\/06\/karnataka-high-court-no-suppression-of-material-facts-if-show-cause-notice-issued-is-based-on-balance-sheet-appeal-denied\/\",\"name\":\"Karnataka High Court | No suppression of material facts if show cause notice issued is based on balance sheet; Appeal denied | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/07\/06\/karnataka-high-court-no-suppression-of-material-facts-if-show-cause-notice-issued-is-based-on-balance-sheet-appeal-denied\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/07\/06\/karnataka-high-court-no-suppression-of-material-facts-if-show-cause-notice-issued-is-based-on-balance-sheet-appeal-denied\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/karnataka_high_court.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2022-07-06T09:30:28+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-05-15T06:31:58+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"appeal filed by Commissioner of Central Tax and considered that CESTAT was right in dropping the demand for extended period\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/07\/06\/karnataka-high-court-no-suppression-of-material-facts-if-show-cause-notice-issued-is-based-on-balance-sheet-appeal-denied\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/07\/06\/karnataka-high-court-no-suppression-of-material-facts-if-show-cause-notice-issued-is-based-on-balance-sheet-appeal-denied\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/07\/06\/karnataka-high-court-no-suppression-of-material-facts-if-show-cause-notice-issued-is-based-on-balance-sheet-appeal-denied\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/karnataka_high_court.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/karnataka_high_court.jpg\",\"width\":1331,\"height\":888,\"caption\":\"Karnataka High Court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/07\/06\/karnataka-high-court-no-suppression-of-material-facts-if-show-cause-notice-issued-is-based-on-balance-sheet-appeal-denied\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Karnataka High Court | No suppression of material facts if show cause notice issued is based on balance sheet; Appeal denied\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Karnataka High Court | No suppression of material facts if show cause notice issued is based on balance sheet; Appeal denied | SCC Times","description":"appeal filed by Commissioner of Central Tax and considered that CESTAT was right in dropping the demand for extended period","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/07\/06\/karnataka-high-court-no-suppression-of-material-facts-if-show-cause-notice-issued-is-based-on-balance-sheet-appeal-denied\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Karnataka High Court | No suppression of material facts if show cause notice issued is based on balance sheet; Appeal denied","og_description":"appeal filed by Commissioner of Central Tax and considered that CESTAT was right in dropping the demand for extended period","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/07\/06\/karnataka-high-court-no-suppression-of-material-facts-if-show-cause-notice-issued-is-based-on-balance-sheet-appeal-denied\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2022-07-06T09:30:28+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-05-15T06:31:58+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1331,"height":888,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/karnataka_high_court.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/07\/06\/karnataka-high-court-no-suppression-of-material-facts-if-show-cause-notice-issued-is-based-on-balance-sheet-appeal-denied\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/07\/06\/karnataka-high-court-no-suppression-of-material-facts-if-show-cause-notice-issued-is-based-on-balance-sheet-appeal-denied\/","name":"Karnataka High Court | No suppression of material facts if show cause notice issued is based on balance sheet; Appeal denied | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/07\/06\/karnataka-high-court-no-suppression-of-material-facts-if-show-cause-notice-issued-is-based-on-balance-sheet-appeal-denied\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/07\/06\/karnataka-high-court-no-suppression-of-material-facts-if-show-cause-notice-issued-is-based-on-balance-sheet-appeal-denied\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/karnataka_high_court.jpg","datePublished":"2022-07-06T09:30:28+00:00","dateModified":"2025-05-15T06:31:58+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"appeal filed by Commissioner of Central Tax and considered that CESTAT was right in dropping the demand for extended period","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/07\/06\/karnataka-high-court-no-suppression-of-material-facts-if-show-cause-notice-issued-is-based-on-balance-sheet-appeal-denied\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/07\/06\/karnataka-high-court-no-suppression-of-material-facts-if-show-cause-notice-issued-is-based-on-balance-sheet-appeal-denied\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/07\/06\/karnataka-high-court-no-suppression-of-material-facts-if-show-cause-notice-issued-is-based-on-balance-sheet-appeal-denied\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/karnataka_high_court.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/karnataka_high_court.jpg","width":1331,"height":888,"caption":"Karnataka High Court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/07\/06\/karnataka-high-court-no-suppression-of-material-facts-if-show-cause-notice-issued-is-based-on-balance-sheet-appeal-denied\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Karnataka High Court | No suppression of material facts if show cause notice issued is based on balance sheet; Appeal denied"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/karnataka_high_court.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":238497,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/04\/cestat-assessee-eligible-for-availing-cenvat-credit-on-service-tax-paid-on-outward-transportation-of-its-finished-goods-tribunal-dismisses-appeal-by-the-revenue\/","url_meta":{"origin":269667,"position":0},"title":"CESTAT | Assessee eligible for availing CENVAT credit on service tax paid on outward transportation of its finished goods; Tribunal dismisses appeal by the Revenue","author":"Editor","date":"November 4, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): P.K. Choudhary (Judicial Member), dismissed an appeal filed by the Revenue alleging that the amendment of word \u201cfrom\u201d in the phrase \u201cclearance of final products from the place of removal\u201d to \u201cupto\u201d would not change the position of law as regards outward\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":211964,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/03\/13\/cestat-mere-non-disclosure-of-particulars-cannot-be-concluded-as-willful-suppression-in-order-to-invoke-extended-period\/","url_meta":{"origin":269667,"position":1},"title":"CESTAT | Mere non-disclosure of particulars cannot be concluded as willful suppression in order to invoke extended period","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"March 13, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): This appeal was filed before Sulekha Beevi, J. and Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical).\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Facts of the case were that appellants were manufacturers of Camshaft Assembly Segments for Diesel Locomotives and were holding service tax registration. During verification of records of the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":258911,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/23\/cestat-suppression-of-facts-in-the-nature-of-undeclared-goods-and-misdeclared-good-resulting-in-confiscation-made-under-s-28-4-held-to-be-valid-and-proper\/","url_meta":{"origin":269667,"position":2},"title":"CESTAT | Suppression of facts in the nature of \u2018undeclared goods\u2019 and \u2018misdeclared good\u2019 resulting in confiscation made under S. 28 (4), held to be valid and proper","author":"Editor","date":"December 23, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): Sulekha Beevi (Judicial Member), dismissed the appeal against the order of Commissioner of Customs contesting the penalty imposed on appellants under section 114 A of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant argued that in a live consignment, the duty cannot be demanded\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":327673,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/31\/discounts-declared-small-segment-cars-cannot-allowed-luxury-model-cars-attracting-higher-rate-of-duty-cestat\/","url_meta":{"origin":269667,"position":3},"title":"Incentive of discounts declared for small\/mid segment cars cannot be allowed to luxury model cars attracting higher rate of duty: CESTAT","author":"Arushi","date":"July 31, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"In absence of any suppression or mis-declaration of the facts, larger period of limitation could not be invoked.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"CESTAT","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/CESTAT.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/CESTAT.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/CESTAT.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/CESTAT.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":271168,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/04\/madras-high-court-applies-doctrine-of-substantial-compliance-to-determine-implications-of-limitation-period-in-the-customs-act-1962\/","url_meta":{"origin":269667,"position":4},"title":"Madras High Court applies doctrine of ‘substantial compliance’ to determine implications of limitation period in the Customs Act, 1962","author":"Editor","date":"August 4, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Madras High Court: In a case where show cause notices were sent by Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Respondent 4) for short collection of duty due to non-levy of anti-dumping duty in terms of Section 28(1) of Customs Act, 1962, a Division Bench of R. Mahadevan and J. Sathya Narayana Prasad,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Madras High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Madras-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Madras-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Madras-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Madras-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Madras-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":251030,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/07\/09\/convenience-fee\/","url_meta":{"origin":269667,"position":5},"title":"CESTAT | \u201cConvenience fee\u201d charged by PVR for online booking of movie tickets under OIDAR category under S. 65(105) (zh) of Finance Act taxable or not? Tribunal explains","author":"Editor","date":"July 9, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): The Coram of Dilip Gupta (President) and PV Subba Rao (Technical Member) allowed the appeals which were filed to assail the order dated 25-07-2014 by which the two show cause notices dated 14-06-2012 and 15-03-2013 had been adjudicated upon and service tax\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/269667","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=269667"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/269667\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/269649"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=269667"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=269667"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=269667"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}