Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1201 to 1220 of 96046 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 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
