Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Page of 4800
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96000 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CENVAT Credit - common inputs/input services used for manufacture of stock transferred exempted goods (lime stone) and dutiable products (Cement/Clinker) - The Tribunal clarified that the presence of two different final products (limestone as exempted and cement/clinker as dutiable) necessitates the maintenance of separate accounts for inputs/input services used. The court rejected the appellant's interpretation and emphasized that the rules apply to their situation, thus upholding the demand for payment under Rule 6(3)(i) due to the appellant's failure to maintain separate accounts. - However, the CESTAT agreed with the appellant regarding the limitation period, noting no grounds for invoking the extended period due to the appellant's transparent documentation and periodic disclosures.
CENVAT Credit - common inputs/input services used for manufacture of stock transferred exempted goods (lime stone) and dutiable products (Cement/Clinker) - The Tribunal clarified that the presence of two different final products (limestone as exempted and cement/clinker as dutiable) necessitates the maintenance of separate accounts for inputs/input services used. The court rejected the appellant's interpretation and emphasized that the rules apply to their situation, thus upholding the demand for payment under Rule 6(3)(i) due to the appellant's failure to maintain separate accounts. - However, the CESTAT agreed with the appellant regarding the limitation period, noting no grounds for invoking the extended period due to the appellant's transparent documentation and periodic disclosures.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
