Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
CENVAT Credit - waste/by-product generated i.e. Aluminium dross during the manufacture of Aluminium products from Alumina in the appellant's factory which is sold by the appellant without payment of duty - exempt goods or not - The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant is not liable to pay excise duty on the clearance of "Aluminium dross" based on several grounds. - The order under challenge erred in applying Rule 6 of CCR, 2004 based on the rescinded circular, and the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider the implications of the Supreme Court's decision in Sucrose India (supra) and the Circular dated 07.07.2022.
CENVAT Credit - waste/by-product generated i.e. Aluminium dross during the manufacture of Aluminium products from Alumina in the appellant's factory which is sold by the appellant without payment of duty - exempt goods or not - The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant is not liable to pay excise duty on the clearance of "Aluminium dross" based on several grounds. - The order under challenge erred in applying Rule 6 of CCR, 2004 based on the rescinded circular, and the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider the implications of the Supreme Court's decision in Sucrose India (supra) and the Circular dated 07.07.2022.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.