Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
701 to 720 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The appellant supplied gear boxes to Mega Power Projects and availed exemption benefit under Notification No. 06/2006-C.E. dated 01.03.2006. The adjudicating authority denied the exemption, citing non-fulfillment of conditions and goods not covered under Heading 98.01 of Notification No. 21/2002. The Tribunal held that the appellant fulfilled the conditions by submitting requisite certificates from the appropriate authority certifying the projects as Mega Power Projects. The goods cleared under Chapter Heading 8483 were covered within Notification No. 21/2002, exempting all goods supplied against international competitive bidding. Hence, the appellant was eligible for exemption under Notification No. 06/2006-C.E. The demand of central excise duty, interest, and penalty was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
The appellant supplied gear boxes to Mega Power Projects and availed exemption benefit under Notification No. 06/2006-C.E. dated 01.03.2006. The adjudicating authority denied the exemption, citing non-fulfillment of conditions and goods not covered under Heading 98.01 of Notification No. 21/2002. The Tribunal held that the appellant fulfilled the conditions by submitting requisite certificates from the appropriate authority certifying the projects as Mega Power Projects. The goods cleared under Chapter Heading 8483 were covered within Notification No. 21/2002, exempting all goods supplied against international competitive bidding. Hence, the appellant was eligible for exemption under Notification No. 06/2006-C.E. The demand of central excise duty, interest, and penalty was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
