PMLA anticipatory bail requires satisfaction of twin conditions, while predicate-offence protection does not extend to independent money-laundering pr...
School-affiliation charges remain taxable where not directly connected with examinations, while extended limitation requires proof of deliberate tax e...
Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1 to 20 of 96510 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT allowed the appeal, holding the impugned orders...
Appeal allowed: conversion treated as manufacture, entitlement under Notification No.56/2002-CE and CENVAT credits reinstated, including returned and remade goods
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
CESTAT allowed the appeal, holding the impugned orders unsustainable and answering all issues in favour of the appellants. The Tribunal found the conversion processes amounted to manufacture for purposes of the Central Excise Tariff and upheld the appellants' entitlement to benefit under Notification No.56/2002-CE and to claim CENVAT credit, including on goods returned, remade and cleared on payment of duty. Revenue was held precluded from reopening past periods after having accepted contrary appellate orders and coordinate decisions; recovery as an "erroneous refund" could not be initiated absent challenge to the original assessment/self-assessment under the statutory appeal provisions. Consequently, demands and denials were set aside and the appeal allowed.
CESTAT allowed the appeal, holding the impugned orders unsustainable and answering all issues in favour of the appellants. The Tribunal found the conversion processes amounted to manufacture for purposes of the Central Excise Tariff and upheld the appellants' entitlement to benefit under Notification No.56/2002-CE and to claim CENVAT credit, including on goods returned, remade and cleared on payment of duty. Revenue was held precluded from reopening past periods after having accepted contrary appellate orders and coordinate decisions; recovery as an "erroneous refund" could not be initiated absent challenge to the original assessment/self-assessment under the statutory appeal provisions. Consequently, demands and denials were set aside and the appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.