Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Demand of central excise duty along with interest and penalty - The Tribunal noted that the Central Excise Duty has been demanded by the appellant on the sole ground of difference between the quantity of the granulated slag shown in the Annual Operational Statistical Report and the quantity shown in the monthly ER-1 return filed for the period July 2004 to March, 2008. Apart from that there is no evidence of removal of goods from the factory. Thus the Tribunal noted that the show cause notice came to be issued solely based upon the difference in the two statements - The respondent explained the difference - The Tribunal rightly granted relief to the respondent considering the factual position - HC
Demand of central excise duty along with interest and penalty - The Tribunal noted that the Central Excise Duty has been demanded by the appellant on the sole ground of difference between the quantity of the granulated slag shown in the Annual Operational Statistical Report and the quantity shown in the monthly ER-1 return filed for the period July 2004 to March, 2008. Apart from that there is no evidence of removal of goods from the factory. Thus the Tribunal noted that the show cause notice came to be issued solely based upon the difference in the two statements - The respondent explained the difference - The Tribunal rightly granted relief to the respondent considering the factual position - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
