Statutory transfer formalities invalidated alleged share and property transfers, while retrospective record manipulation constituted oppression and mi...
Provisional attachment of laundered funds and equivalent-value property sustained, with statutory protection limited to pension, gratuity and providen...
Insolvency moratorium does not shield company officers from cheque dishonour prosecution for liability arising before corporate insolvency proceedings...
Advance-ruling mechanism governs pending GST classification, exemption and taxability disputes, limiting writ review once the specialised forum functi...
Page of 4788
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
581 to 600 of 95752 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Appellate Tribunal addressed issues regarding the method of valuation of electrical motors, whether to apply Rule 8 or Rule 4 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000. Following the precedent set by a Larger Bench decision, the Tribunal upheld the demand for valuation based on the spares market for all clearances, including captive consumption and warranty replacements. Regarding time limitation and cum-duty benefit, the Tribunal found no intentional suppression of facts, as the issue was not without controversy. The Tribunal noted that the original show-cause notice did not allege suppression, and since all assemblies were dutifully disclosed, willful suppression could not be claimed. The Tribunal upheld demands within the normal period, extended cum-duty benefit, set aside penalties under Section 11AC, and remanded the matter for duty recomputation.
The Appellate Tribunal addressed issues regarding the method of valuation of electrical motors, whether to apply Rule 8 or Rule 4 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000. Following the precedent set by a Larger Bench decision, the Tribunal upheld the demand for valuation based on the spares market for all clearances, including captive consumption and warranty replacements. Regarding time limitation and cum-duty benefit, the Tribunal found no intentional suppression of facts, as the issue was not without controversy. The Tribunal noted that the original show-cause notice did not allege suppression, and since all assemblies were dutifully disclosed, willful suppression could not be claimed. The Tribunal upheld demands within the normal period, extended cum-duty benefit, set aside penalties under Section 11AC, and remanded the matter for duty recomputation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
