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...
The CESTAT held that central excise duty liability arises only on manufacture or production of goods as defined under the Central Excise Act, 1944, and classified in the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The intermixing of SKO with HSD or MS does not alter the classification or attract duty applicable to HSD or MS, as the mixed product does not meet the technical specifications or BIS standards required for such classification. The appellants cleared SKO, HSD, and MS separately, and incidental mixing during pipeline supply does not justify reclassification or additional duty. The Tribunal relied on precedent holding that duty on interface quantity of SKO cannot be demanded at HSD or MS rates. Consequently, the impugned order confirming demands and penalties was quashed, and the appeal was allowed.
The CESTAT held that central excise duty liability arises only on manufacture or production of goods as defined under the Central Excise Act, 1944, and classified in the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The intermixing of SKO with HSD or MS does not alter the classification or attract duty applicable to HSD or MS, as the mixed product does not meet the technical specifications or BIS standards required for such classification. The appellants cleared SKO, HSD, and MS separately, and incidental mixing during pipeline supply does not justify reclassification or additional duty. The Tribunal relied on precedent holding that duty on interface quantity of SKO cannot be demanded at HSD or MS rates. Consequently, the impugned order confirming demands and penalties was quashed, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.