Authentication of paper assessment orders upheld, while qualifying repairs, consumables and vendor advance write-offs remain deductible business claim...
Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 95957 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
