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 held that Appellant's processing of imported steel wire ropes through cutting, fusing, crimping with accessories, and packaging as "Gripple Hanger System" constituted manufacture under Central Excise Act. The processed product emerged as distinct commodity with separate name, character, use, and higher marketability than individual components. However, CESTAT partially allowed appeal on limitation grounds. Revenue failed to establish intent to evade duty or suppression of facts warranting extended limitation period under Section 11A(4). Show cause notice based merely on audit objection without cogent evidence of willful suppression cannot invoke extended period. Excise duty demand within normal limitation period upheld; demand and penalty for extended period set aside as time-barred.
CESTAT held that Appellant's processing of imported steel wire ropes through cutting, fusing, crimping with accessories, and packaging as "Gripple Hanger System" constituted manufacture under Central Excise Act. The processed product emerged as distinct commodity with separate name, character, use, and higher marketability than individual components. However, CESTAT partially allowed appeal on limitation grounds. Revenue failed to establish intent to evade duty or suppression of facts warranting extended limitation period under Section 11A(4). Show cause notice based merely on audit objection without cogent evidence of willful suppression cannot invoke extended period. Excise duty demand within normal limitation period upheld; demand and penalty for extended period set aside as time-barred.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.