Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedur...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2121 to 2140 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The case involved a dispute regarding the switching of options u/r 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 within the same financial year. The issue was whether a manufacturer could switch options without proper intimation to the jurisdictional Central Excise authority. The High Court held that the restriction on withdrawing the option during the financial year only applies if the manufacturer has formally intimated the Range Superintendent of the switch. The court found no evidence that the manufacturer had exercised the initial option as claimed by the Commissioner. The Tribunal's decision to allow the appeal and quash the Order-in-Original was upheld, dismissing the appeal.
The case involved a dispute regarding the switching of options u/r 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 within the same financial year. The issue was whether a manufacturer could switch options without proper intimation to the jurisdictional Central Excise authority. The High Court held that the restriction on withdrawing the option during the financial year only applies if the manufacturer has formally intimated the Range Superintendent of the switch. The court found no evidence that the manufacturer had exercised the initial option as claimed by the Commissioner. The Tribunal's decision to allow the appeal and quash the Order-in-Original was upheld, dismissing the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
