Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
Receipt of immovable property requires actual possession or enjoyment; redevelopment allotments exchanged for tenancy rights fall outside deemed incom...
Section 80P deduction covers Souharda credit societies, including qualifying surplus-deposit interest, subject to member KYC verification for cash dep...
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 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
