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...
Page of 4916
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 98302 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT allowed appeal concerning CENVAT credit on Smart-Cards sent to STB manufacturer for testing and pairing. Tribunal held appellant was not required to reverse CENVAT credit under Rule 3(5) as Smart-Cards were ultimately used for providing DTH Broadcasting services. Rule 4(5)(a)(i) permits CENVAT credit when inputs are sent to job worker for processing and returned within prescribed timeframe. Appellant's accounting records adequately demonstrated compliance with Rule 4(5)(a) requirements for tracking movement of Smart-Cards to job worker and their return with STBs. Department's reliance on Non-Ferrous Industries case distinguished as it pertained to different statutory framework under Central Excise Rules, 1944. Appeal sustained as case fell within Rule 4(5)(a) scope.
CESTAT allowed appeal concerning CENVAT credit on Smart-Cards sent to STB manufacturer for testing and pairing. Tribunal held appellant was not required to reverse CENVAT credit under Rule 3(5) as Smart-Cards were ultimately used for providing DTH Broadcasting services. Rule 4(5)(a)(i) permits CENVAT credit when inputs are sent to job worker for processing and returned within prescribed timeframe. Appellant's accounting records adequately demonstrated compliance with Rule 4(5)(a) requirements for tracking movement of Smart-Cards to job worker and their return with STBs. Department's reliance on Non-Ferrous Industries case distinguished as it pertained to different statutory framework under Central Excise Rules, 1944. Appeal sustained as case fell within Rule 4(5)(a) scope.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4916 
