Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return filing...
Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Page of 4790
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
421 to 440 of 95794 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's contention regarding shortage of work-in-progress (WIP) due to dust generated during manufacturing was rejected. The logical conclusion was that final goods were manufactured but lesser quantity was recorded in the final products register, and duty was paid on the recorded quantity, while the remaining quantity was removed clandestinely. The shortage was substantial, and the impugned order correctly held the appellant liable for excise duty u/s 11A, invoking extended period of limitation along with interest and penalty u/s 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, the imposition of personal penalty on Shri Tekriwal u/r 26 was set aside as confiscation of goods, a prerequisite for invoking Rule 26, was not undertaken by the Commissioner. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
The appellant's contention regarding shortage of work-in-progress (WIP) due to dust generated during manufacturing was rejected. The logical conclusion was that final goods were manufactured but lesser quantity was recorded in the final products register, and duty was paid on the recorded quantity, while the remaining quantity was removed clandestinely. The shortage was substantial, and the impugned order correctly held the appellant liable for excise duty u/s 11A, invoking extended period of limitation along with interest and penalty u/s 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, the imposition of personal penalty on Shri Tekriwal u/r 26 was set aside as confiscation of goods, a prerequisite for invoking Rule 26, was not undertaken by the Commissioner. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4790
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
