Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
The Appellate Tribunal addressed the issue of determining assessable value u/s 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, including landed cost and processing charges. Citing Supreme Court precedent and CBEC circulars, duty was upheld based on landed cost. The Tribunal noted that the selling price at times exceeded landed cost, with duty paid on the higher value. Regarding time limitation, the Tribunal found no suppression of facts as the appellant regularly submitted required documents. Referring to a Supreme Court case, it was held that invoking the proviso to Section 11A requires evidence of fraud or willful evasion, which was not present. The order confirmed duty for the normal period only, partially allowing the appeal.
The Appellate Tribunal addressed the issue of determining assessable value u/s 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, including landed cost and processing charges. Citing Supreme Court precedent and CBEC circulars, duty was upheld based on landed cost. The Tribunal noted that the selling price at times exceeded landed cost, with duty paid on the higher value. Regarding time limitation, the Tribunal found no suppression of facts as the appellant regularly submitted required documents. Referring to a Supreme Court case, it was held that invoking the proviso to Section 11A requires evidence of fraud or willful evasion, which was not present. The order confirmed duty for the normal period only, partially allowing the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
