1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals because the tax amount involved was negligible.</h1> The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals because the tax amount involved was negligible. - 2016 (331) E.L.T. A137 (SC) Differential duty - Car removed from the factory for placing in the Show Room and subsequently brought back into the factory - Tribunal held that since, the appellants had taken credit under Rule 16(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 in respect of duty paid at prevalent price on new model cars which were removed for placing in the Show Room and subsequently brought back into the factory, they were liable to pay differential duty under Rule 16(2) ibid while finally clearing those cars at the reduced price reported in [2007 (8) TMI 274 - CESTAT Bangalore] - Apex Court dismissed the appeal for negligible tax amount involved. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals because the tax amount involved was negligible.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
