Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) allowed the appeal filed by the appellants against the order of the Commissioner classifying their product 'Propylene/Propene-PP feed stock' under CETI 2711 1400. The Tribunal held that if propylene/propene is in a pure or commercially pure state, being a separate chemically defined hydrocarbon, it is classifiable under heading 29.01 and not under Chapter 27. The matter was remanded back to the original authority to determine the purity level and whether it is a separate chemically defined compound for proper classification. The Tribunal also held that the extended period of limitation u/s 11A cannot be invoked as there was no willful suppression or misstatement by the appellants, whose periodic returns clearly showed details of production and clearance of the impugned product.
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) allowed the appeal filed by the appellants against the order of the Commissioner classifying their product 'Propylene/Propene-PP feed stock' under CETI 2711 1400. The Tribunal held that if propylene/propene is in a pure or commercially pure state, being a separate chemically defined hydrocarbon, it is classifiable under heading 29.01 and not under Chapter 27. The matter was remanded back to the original authority to determine the purity level and whether it is a separate chemically defined compound for proper classification. The Tribunal also held that the extended period of limitation u/s 11A cannot be invoked as there was no willful suppression or misstatement by the appellants, whose periodic returns clearly showed details of production and clearance of the impugned product.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.