1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Supreme Court dismisses civil appeal as withdrawn after High Court remands matter to CESTAT</h1> The Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeal as withdrawn due to the High Court remanding the matter back to the Customs, Excise & Service Tax ... Duty demand - manufacturing activity - activity of Punching, Notching, Bending in case of carline and edge bending in case of Body Side Pillars - Since during the pendency of appeal, the High Court has remanded the matter back to CESTAT, therefore, Supreme Court dismissed the appela filed by the assessee as withdrawn. The appeal was filed against the decision of Tribunal [2005 (5) TMI 428 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI], wherein tribunal held that both the authorities below have recorded the concurrent findings that activities amounted to manufacture as new products/articles came into existence which appellant No. I supplied to the appellant No. 2. No substantiate evidence on the record to disturb these findings of the authorities below. The Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeal as withdrawn because the High Court remanded the matter back to the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) during the appeal's pendency. (Citation: 2015 (10) TMI 347 - SC)