Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
241 to 260 of 95715 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 undertook several activities on bought-out items, raising the issue of whether these processes amounted to manufacture liable for excise duty. For certain finished products like "EOLIA SHOWER ONLY TRIM", the activities performed transformed individual parts into a complete product with a distinct identity, end-use, and nomenclature, amounting to manufacture u/s 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Regarding items like "BOTTLE TRAP" and "FLOOR DRAIN", the appellant claimed the Physical Vapor Deposition (PVD) process merely changed color and made products rust-free, not constituting manufacture. However, applying the Supreme Court's ratio in UNION OF INDIA VERSUS JG. GLASS INDUSTRIES LTD., the PVD process was found essential for product usability by preventing corrosion, qualifying as manufacture incidental to finished goods production u/s 2(f). Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed and partly dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal.
The appellant undertook several activities on bought-out items, raising the issue of whether these processes amounted to manufacture liable for excise duty. For certain finished products like "EOLIA SHOWER ONLY TRIM", the activities performed transformed individual parts into a complete product with a distinct identity, end-use, and nomenclature, amounting to manufacture u/s 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Regarding items like "BOTTLE TRAP" and "FLOOR DRAIN", the appellant claimed the Physical Vapor Deposition (PVD) process merely changed color and made products rust-free, not constituting manufacture. However, applying the Supreme Court's ratio in UNION OF INDIA VERSUS JG. GLASS INDUSTRIES LTD., the PVD process was found essential for product usability by preventing corrosion, qualifying as manufacture incidental to finished goods production u/s 2(f). Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed and partly dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
