Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
461 to 480 of 95715 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 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 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
