Transfer-pricing benchmarking and capital-receipt principles sustained taxpayer relief, while unsupported property-advance write-offs remained disallo...
Pre-existing operational debt disputes require genuine evidence, while undirected running-account payments may be appropriated on a first-in-first-out...
Agency in CNG distribution makes outlet operators commission agents, rendering taxable Business Auxiliary Service rather than purchasing goods for res...
Composite inpatient healthcare supply may retain exemption despite MRP medicine billing, while separate taxable sale characterisation remains disputed...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1001 to 1020 of 96046 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT adjudicated a dispute concerning classification and excise duty for palm stearin products. The tribunal determined that the appellant's classification was bona fide, based on prior circular and supported by documented manufacturing processes. The department failed to establish fraudulent intent in duty non-payment. The extended limitation period under Section 11A could not be invoked absent evidence of deliberate evasion. Critically, the show cause notice issued beyond the standard one-year limitation was deemed invalid. Precedential cases from Mumbai and Ahmedabad benches supported the appellant's position. The tribunal ultimately allowed the appeal, negating the duty demands and rejecting the extended limitation period application.
CESTAT adjudicated a dispute concerning classification and excise duty for palm stearin products. The tribunal determined that the appellant's classification was bona fide, based on prior circular and supported by documented manufacturing processes. The department failed to establish fraudulent intent in duty non-payment. The extended limitation period under Section 11A could not be invoked absent evidence of deliberate evasion. Critically, the show cause notice issued beyond the standard one-year limitation was deemed invalid. Precedential cases from Mumbai and Ahmedabad benches supported the appellant's position. The tribunal ultimately allowed the appeal, negating the duty demands and rejecting the extended limitation period application.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
