Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
CESTAT ruled on classification dispute regarding parts of Self-Loading Concrete Mixtures (SLCM). The appellant, both importer and manufacturer of SLCM, had Central Excise registration under tariff heading 8474. The Tribunal determined that since the main machine (SLCM) was already classified under CETH 8474 by Central Excise authorities, its parts must follow the same classification. Revenue's proposal to classify parts under CTH 8708 was rejected. The decision aligned with previous rulings by Telangana VAT Appellate Tribunal and GST regime classifications. Following established legal principle, when revenue's proposed classification fails, the department's case cannot succeed regardless of assessee's classification accuracy. Appeal disposed, maintaining classification as declared in Bills of Entry.
CESTAT ruled on classification dispute regarding parts of Self-Loading Concrete Mixtures (SLCM). The appellant, both importer and manufacturer of SLCM, had Central Excise registration under tariff heading 8474. The Tribunal determined that since the main machine (SLCM) was already classified under CETH 8474 by Central Excise authorities, its parts must follow the same classification. Revenue's proposal to classify parts under CTH 8708 was rejected. The decision aligned with previous rulings by Telangana VAT Appellate Tribunal and GST regime classifications. Following established legal principle, when revenue's proposed classification fails, the department's case cannot succeed regardless of assessee's classification accuracy. Appeal disposed, maintaining classification as declared in Bills of Entry.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
