Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 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" ?
CENVAT Credit - Removal of capital goods - Depreciation - Deduction of 2.5% to be applied from the date of availing credit, not from the date of receiving or putting to use the capital goods - Rule 3(5) and Rule 3(5A) and Rule 4(2) of CCR - Though capital goods received at the same time, Rule 4(2) restricts availment of credit to 50% of duty paid on capital goods in a financial year - Legislature conscious of Rule 4(2) while introducing Rule 3(5A) - Ordinary meaning of "from the date of availing the credit" to be followed - No ambiguity to be read into - Appellant's calculation applying deductions on 100% from date of availing initial credit incorrect - Time limitation - No wilful suppression of facts established - Appellant paid amount as per their calculation and filed ST3 returns reflecting reversal of credit - Show cause notice time-barred - Appeal allowed on ground of limitation.
CENVAT Credit - Removal of capital goods - Depreciation - Deduction of 2.5% to be applied from the date of availing credit, not from the date of receiving or putting to use the capital goods - Rule 3(5) and Rule 3(5A) and Rule 4(2) of CCR - Though capital goods received at the same time, Rule 4(2) restricts availment of credit to 50% of duty paid on capital goods in a financial year - Legislature conscious of Rule 4(2) while introducing Rule 3(5A) - Ordinary meaning of "from the date of availing the credit" to be followed - No ambiguity to be read into - Appellant's calculation applying deductions on 100% from date of availing initial credit incorrect - Time limitation - No wilful suppression of facts established - Appellant paid amount as per their calculation and filed ST3 returns reflecting reversal of credit - Show cause notice time-barred - Appeal allowed on ground of limitation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
