Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 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 paid excise duty on the removal of inputs as such, based on the transaction value. However, this excise duty was found to be in excess of the actual CENVAT credit involved in such removal. Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944, states that if an assessee collects an amount in the name of excise duty and retains it, the same must be credited to the Central Government. In this case, although the appellant charged excise duty over and above the CENVAT credit involved, the total amount collected from the customer was paid by debiting the CENVAT account. According to the CESTAT judgment in Shivam Metals, if the amount collected in the name of excise duty is paid to the government, the demand for such amount cannot be raised invoking Section 11D. Therefore, the demand u/s 11D in the present case is not sustainable, and the impugned orders are set aside, allowing the appeals.
The appellant paid excise duty on the removal of inputs as such, based on the transaction value. However, this excise duty was found to be in excess of the actual CENVAT credit involved in such removal. Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944, states that if an assessee collects an amount in the name of excise duty and retains it, the same must be credited to the Central Government. In this case, although the appellant charged excise duty over and above the CENVAT credit involved, the total amount collected from the customer was paid by debiting the CENVAT account. According to the CESTAT judgment in Shivam Metals, if the amount collected in the name of excise duty is paid to the government, the demand for such amount cannot be raised invoking Section 11D. Therefore, the demand u/s 11D in the present case is not sustainable, and the impugned orders are set aside, allowing the appeals.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
