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 allowed the appeal concerning excise duty liability on packing/repacking activities of construction equipment parts. The Tribunal held that Wheeled Tractor Loader Backhoe and Vibratory Compactor were not classified as "automobiles" prior to 29.04.2010, therefore no excise duty was leviable on packing/repacking of their parts before this date. Following the Larger Bench decision in Action Construction Equipment, Notification No. 11/2011 was deemed prospective from 29.04.2010. Post-amendment, only WTLB qualified as "automobile" under Serial No. 100A, making excise duty applicable on its parts packing/repacking, which appellants had already paid with interest. Vibratory Compactor remained excluded from Serial No. 100A classification, rendering no excise duty liability on its parts packing/repacking activities throughout the relevant period from 01.06.2006 to 30.06.2011. The Commissioner's impugned order dated 27.02.2012 was set aside.
CESTAT allowed the appeal concerning excise duty liability on packing/repacking activities of construction equipment parts. The Tribunal held that Wheeled Tractor Loader Backhoe and Vibratory Compactor were not classified as "automobiles" prior to 29.04.2010, therefore no excise duty was leviable on packing/repacking of their parts before this date. Following the Larger Bench decision in Action Construction Equipment, Notification No. 11/2011 was deemed prospective from 29.04.2010. Post-amendment, only WTLB qualified as "automobile" under Serial No. 100A, making excise duty applicable on its parts packing/repacking, which appellants had already paid with interest. Vibratory Compactor remained excluded from Serial No. 100A classification, rendering no excise duty liability on its parts packing/repacking activities throughout the relevant period from 01.06.2006 to 30.06.2011. The Commissioner's impugned order dated 27.02.2012 was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
