Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Customs Assessment Portal centralises classification and valuation guidance to support consistent, transparent and informed compliance across stakehol...
Page of 4918
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 98359 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 upheld the principle that the phrase "for use in manufacture" in notification No. 21/2002 Cus. cannot be interpreted to exclude inputs that are destroyed or not physically incorporated into the final product from remission eligibility. Relying on precedent from a Coordinate Bench, the Tribunal held that such a restrictive interpretation would render Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules and Section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962 ineffective, which is impermissible. Since no contrary modification or setting aside of the precedent was demonstrated, the impugned order denying remission for alleged violation of end-use conditions was quashed. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.
The CESTAT upheld the principle that the phrase "for use in manufacture" in notification No. 21/2002 Cus. cannot be interpreted to exclude inputs that are destroyed or not physically incorporated into the final product from remission eligibility. Relying on precedent from a Coordinate Bench, the Tribunal held that such a restrictive interpretation would render Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules and Section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962 ineffective, which is impermissible. Since no contrary modification or setting aside of the precedent was demonstrated, the impugned order denying remission for alleged violation of end-use conditions was quashed. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.