Personal hearing requirements in GST adjudication were satisfied by prior opportunities and written submissions; appellate limitation received writ-pe...
Interactive flat panels meeting automatic data processing conditions are distinguished from monitors, while later classification clarifications apply ...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
981 to 1000 of 96177 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, a job worker, violated Rules 6 and 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules by not including the value of free supply material from the prime manufacturer while clearing job-worked goods on payment of duty. This amounted to suppression of facts with intent to evade duty, invoking the extended period of limitation u/s 11A(4). The assessable value should have included the value of raw materials supplied for job work, as per Supreme Court decisions. The benefit of Notification 214/86-CE was not admissible due to non-compliance with conditions. Rule 10A provided definiteness for valuation of goods manufactured and cleared by job workers.
The appellant, a job worker, violated Rules 6 and 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules by not including the value of free supply material from the prime manufacturer while clearing job-worked goods on payment of duty. This amounted to suppression of facts with intent to evade duty, invoking the extended period of limitation u/s 11A(4). The assessable value should have included the value of raw materials supplied for job work, as per Supreme Court decisions. The benefit of Notification 214/86-CE was not admissible due to non-compliance with conditions. Rule 10A provided definiteness for valuation of goods manufactured and cleared by job workers.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
