Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
CESTAT held that affixing MRP on imported electrical home appliances constituted 'manufacture' under Section 2(f)(iii), making it liable for excise duty. The appellant was entitled to CENVAT credit on previously paid import duty. The tribunal rejected the extended period of limitation due to lack of willful suppression, restricting duty demand to normal period (03/2015-10/2016). While mandatory interest was upheld, penalties under Rule 25 and Rule 26 were set aside. Seizure and confiscation of goods were deemed unjustified. Matter remanded to adjudicating authority for computing duty liability, interest, and CENVAT credit entitlement. The appeal was partially allowed through remand.
CESTAT held that affixing MRP on imported electrical home appliances constituted 'manufacture' under Section 2(f)(iii), making it liable for excise duty. The appellant was entitled to CENVAT credit on previously paid import duty. The tribunal rejected the extended period of limitation due to lack of willful suppression, restricting duty demand to normal period (03/2015-10/2016). While mandatory interest was upheld, penalties under Rule 25 and Rule 26 were set aside. Seizure and confiscation of goods were deemed unjustified. Matter remanded to adjudicating authority for computing duty liability, interest, and CENVAT credit entitlement. The appeal was partially allowed through remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
