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...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
821 to 840 of 95955 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 held that although the appellants and the joint venture company are interconnected undertakings under Section 4(3)(B) of the Central Excise Act, they do not qualify as related persons under sub-clause (ii), (iii), or (iv) of clause (b) of the same provision due to the absence of mutuality of interest in each other's business. The Department's reliance on increased dividends as evidence of interest was rejected, as prior litigation established no such mutuality. Consequently, valuation under Rule 10(a) read with Rule 9 was inapplicable. The tribunal set aside the demand and allowed the appeal, affirming that the valuation must not be based on the provisions invoked by the Department.
The CESTAT held that although the appellants and the joint venture company are interconnected undertakings under Section 4(3)(B) of the Central Excise Act, they do not qualify as related persons under sub-clause (ii), (iii), or (iv) of clause (b) of the same provision due to the absence of mutuality of interest in each other's business. The Department's reliance on increased dividends as evidence of interest was rejected, as prior litigation established no such mutuality. Consequently, valuation under Rule 10(a) read with Rule 9 was inapplicable. The tribunal set aside the demand and allowed the appeal, affirming that the valuation must not be based on the provisions invoked by the Department.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
