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...
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 - The order under challenge erred in applying Rule 6 of CCR, 2004 based on the rescinded circular, and the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider the implications of the Supreme Court's decision in Sucrose India (supra) and the Circular dated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 - The order under challenge erred in applying Rule 6 of CCR, 2004 based on the rescinded circular, and the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider the implications of the Supreme Court's decision in Sucrose India (supra) and the Circular dated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.