Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Condonation of delay permits statutory appeal restoration where inadequate service explanation prevented consideration of reassessment and taxable-inc...
This is a case regarding levy of Central Excise Duty on Ready Mix Concrete (RMC) manufactured at construction sites by the appellant. The key points are: The appellant was manufacturing RMC at the site of the builder using raw materials provided by the builder, making it a job-work activity. The ownership of plant and machinery is irrelevant in determining job-work; the relationship between material supplier and processor is crucial. As the appellant was clearing goods manufactured on behalf of the builder, duty was payable by the appellant even as a job-worker. Regarding the extended period of limitation, it was held that due to a change in opinion based on a Supreme Court decision, the extended period could not be invoked, and the demand was confined to the normal period as correctly decided by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant's claim for concessional duty rate, if excess duty was due, was to be considered by the Original Adjudicating Authority. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the impugned order.
This is a case regarding levy of Central Excise Duty on Ready Mix Concrete (RMC) manufactured at construction sites by the appellant. The key points are: The appellant was manufacturing RMC at the site of the builder using raw materials provided by the builder, making it a job-work activity. The ownership of plant and machinery is irrelevant in determining job-work; the relationship between material supplier and processor is crucial. As the appellant was clearing goods manufactured on behalf of the builder, duty was payable by the appellant even as a job-worker. Regarding the extended period of limitation, it was held that due to a change in opinion based on a Supreme Court decision, the extended period could not be invoked, and the demand was confined to the normal period as correctly decided by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant's claim for concessional duty rate, if excess duty was due, was to be considered by the Original Adjudicating Authority. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the impugned order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
