Depreciation and routine compliance expenses disallowance did not prove inaccurate particulars or misreporting; penalty sustained only on foreign trav...
Page of 4823
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3381 to 3400 of 96456 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The petitioner's products were previously classified under heading 7615 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, but the Department contended that some products should be classified under heading 7607. The High Court had earlier allowed the petitioner's writ petitions challenging a similar order, following the Supreme Court's order in Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Hindalco Industries Limited, holding that the Aluminium Foil Container is classifiable under 7615 with 12% GST. Consequently, the High Court allowed the present writ petitions and directed the refund of the pre-deposited amount by the petitioner within 30 days, as the order was accepted by the Commissioner GST Central Excise, Madurai.
The petitioner's products were previously classified under heading 7615 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, but the Department contended that some products should be classified under heading 7607. The High Court had earlier allowed the petitioner's writ petitions challenging a similar order, following the Supreme Court's order in Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Hindalco Industries Limited, holding that the Aluminium Foil Container is classifiable under 7615 with 12% GST. Consequently, the High Court allowed the present writ petitions and directed the refund of the pre-deposited amount by the petitioner within 30 days, as the order was accepted by the Commissioner GST Central Excise, Madurai.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4823 
Join Channel 
