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...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 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 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.