Contingency expenses, exempt-income disallowance, and royalty benchmarking: unsupported adjustments were deleted under consistent accounting and trans...
Disciplinary proportionality requires penalties for Authorised Representative misconduct to match proven harm, leading to reconsideration of registrat...
The case involved the valuation of medicaments for excise duty purposes u/s 4 or 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The issue was whether medicaments supplied to institutions should be assessed u/s 4 or 4A. CESTAT held that when medicaments are supplied to institutions without a retail price, valuation should be u/s 4. Citing a previous case, it was established that for goods supplied to institutions, valuation should be u/s 4, not 4A. Regarding cenvat credit on control samples, the appellant had paid the duty but contested the penalty. Due to the debatable nature of the issue, penalty was set aside. The impugned orders were modified, and the appeal was allowed.
The case involved the valuation of medicaments for excise duty purposes u/s 4 or 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The issue was whether medicaments supplied to institutions should be assessed u/s 4 or 4A. CESTAT held that when medicaments are supplied to institutions without a retail price, valuation should be u/s 4. Citing a previous case, it was established that for goods supplied to institutions, valuation should be u/s 4, not 4A. Regarding cenvat credit on control samples, the appellant had paid the duty but contested the penalty. Due to the debatable nature of the issue, penalty was set aside. The impugned orders were modified, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4918 
