Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Customs Assessment Portal centralises classification and valuation guidance to support consistent, transparent and informed compliance across stakehol...
Page of 4918
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 98359 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT partially allowed the appeal concerning CENVAT credit on dumpers/tippers under operating lease. While credit was previously permitted, Notification 25/2010-CE mandated registration in service provider's name for eligibility. As vehicles were registered with lessor SEFPL, not appellant, credit was disallowed. Interest demand upheld per SC's compensatory principle in Pratibha Processors. However, extended period limitation and penalties were set aside due to genuine belief supported by prior favorable rulings before March 2011 notification. CESTAT found no evidence of duty evasion intent, concluding appellant acted under reasonable interpretation of Rule 4(3) during the ambiguous period.
CESTAT partially allowed the appeal concerning CENVAT credit on dumpers/tippers under operating lease. While credit was previously permitted, Notification 25/2010-CE mandated registration in service provider's name for eligibility. As vehicles were registered with lessor SEFPL, not appellant, credit was disallowed. Interest demand upheld per SC's compensatory principle in Pratibha Processors. However, extended period limitation and penalties were set aside due to genuine belief supported by prior favorable rulings before March 2011 notification. CESTAT found no evidence of duty evasion intent, concluding appellant acted under reasonable interpretation of Rule 4(3) during the ambiguous period.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.