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 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.