Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
The HC held that an appeal against the CESTAT order would lie before the Supreme Court u/s 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as the original order passed by the Commissioner considered issues relating to taxability, allowability of CENVAT credit, and imposition of penalty, despite CESTAT only examining the limitation issue. Consequently, the HC dismissed the present appeal as not maintainable before it.
The HC held that an appeal against the CESTAT order would lie before the Supreme Court u/s 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as the original order passed by the Commissioner considered issues relating to taxability, allowability of CENVAT credit, and imposition of penalty, despite CESTAT only examining the limitation issue. Consequently, the HC dismissed the present appeal as not maintainable before it.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.