Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
The CESTAT allowed exemption for paints applied on wind mills, considering them an integral part of the wind operated electricity generator, covered under the exemption notification. It rejected the argument that paint is merely an external coating and not a component or part. The Tribunal reasoned that paint acts like skin, essential for protection and integral to the product. Disallowing exemption for paint would be akin to removing skin from a living being. The Tribunal distinguished the Bombay High Court order cited by the Department, stating its limited writ jurisdiction is different from the appellate jurisdiction of CESTAT. The Commissioner's order denying exemption was set aside.
The CESTAT allowed exemption for paints applied on wind mills, considering them an integral part of the wind operated electricity generator, covered under the exemption notification. It rejected the argument that paint is merely an external coating and not a component or part. The Tribunal reasoned that paint acts like skin, essential for protection and integral to the product. Disallowing exemption for paint would be akin to removing skin from a living being. The Tribunal distinguished the Bombay High Court order cited by the Department, stating its limited writ jurisdiction is different from the appellate jurisdiction of CESTAT. The Commissioner's order denying exemption was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
