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 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.