COVID-19 limitation exclusion and destination-specific e-way bills govern revisional timelines and penalties for undocumented third-party plywood deli...
Questions arising from miscellaneous application orders cannot challenge unaltered Tribunal findings, leaving the original order separately challengea...
Transfer-pricing comparability filters require fresh arm's-length analysis, while delayed receivables need separate reconsideration with working-capit...
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.