Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
701 to 720 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The CESTAT partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the confirmed excise duty demand for the extended period of limitation due to time-bar considerations and precedent supporting non-inclusion of retained VAT in assessable value. The appellant was held liable to pay the differential excise duty for the normal period with interest. However, all penalties were waived, and the demand for the extended period was quashed. The tribunal recognized the appellant's eligibility for remission under the State VAT scheme and acknowledged that retained VAT amounts were not payable subsequently, thus not constituting additional consideration for excise valuation under the extended period. The appeal was allowed in part, confirming duty and interest for the normal period but rejecting extended period demands and penalties.
The CESTAT partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the confirmed excise duty demand for the extended period of limitation due to time-bar considerations and precedent supporting non-inclusion of retained VAT in assessable value. The appellant was held liable to pay the differential excise duty for the normal period with interest. However, all penalties were waived, and the demand for the extended period was quashed. The tribunal recognized the appellant's eligibility for remission under the State VAT scheme and acknowledged that retained VAT amounts were not payable subsequently, thus not constituting additional consideration for excise valuation under the extended period. The appeal was allowed in part, confirming duty and interest for the normal period but rejecting extended period demands and penalties.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
