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...
Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
81 to 100 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.