Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
Page of 4830
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
181 to 200 of 96587 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC quashed the Revisional Authority's order dated 31/03/2023, allowing the petition. Petitioner had initially approached wrong forum (CESTAT) to challenge Commissioner (Appeals) order regarding CENVAT credit recovery and rebate claims. Under Section 14 Limitation Act, petitioner was entitled to benefit of wrong forum approach, and revision application was filed within prescribed three months from CESTAT order date. CESTAT correctly held petitioner entitled to CENVAT credit under Chapter Heading 847490 since classification dispute was not proposed in show cause notice. Revisional Authority erred in taking contrary view to CESTAT's judicial determination on identical facts regarding product classification, violating judicial propriety. Demand for CENVAT credit disallowance was properly set aside.
HC quashed the Revisional Authority's order dated 31/03/2023, allowing the petition. Petitioner had initially approached wrong forum (CESTAT) to challenge Commissioner (Appeals) order regarding CENVAT credit recovery and rebate claims. Under Section 14 Limitation Act, petitioner was entitled to benefit of wrong forum approach, and revision application was filed within prescribed three months from CESTAT order date. CESTAT correctly held petitioner entitled to CENVAT credit under Chapter Heading 847490 since classification dispute was not proposed in show cause notice. Revisional Authority erred in taking contrary view to CESTAT's judicial determination on identical facts regarding product classification, violating judicial propriety. Demand for CENVAT credit disallowance was properly set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4830 
Join Channel 
