Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Automated Free Sale and Commerce Certificates enable paperless processing while retaining risk-based manual verification for selected exporter applica...
Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
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.