Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Levy of penalty u/s 25(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - evasion of duty - The imposition of penalty on both the appellants is un-called for - since Appellant No.1, had transferred the semi-finished goods for machining to the Appellant No.2, without permission from the Department, it is a procedural and technical lapse on the part of the appellants and the same requires imposition of token penalty in terms of Rule 27, which provides a maximum penalty of Rs.5,000/-. Accordingly, penalty on both the appellants is reduced to Rs.5,000/- each. - AT
Levy of penalty u/s 25(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - evasion of duty - The imposition of penalty on both the appellants is un-called for - since Appellant No.1, had transferred the semi-finished goods for machining to the Appellant No.2, without permission from the Department, it is a procedural and technical lapse on the part of the appellants and the same requires imposition of token penalty in terms of Rule 27, which provides a maximum penalty of Rs.5,000/-. Accordingly, penalty on both the appellants is reduced to Rs.5,000/- each. - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
