Petition dismissed; petitioner allowed to submit detailed disclosures and documents for re-consideration; notices for 2019-23 may be adjudicated on me...
Confiscation and duty recovery quashed where licensing records show export obligation discharged; customs lacks jurisdiction absent licence annulment ...
Page of 4827
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
10141 to 10160 of 96536 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, set aside the impugned order of the Commissioner and held that the dredger imported by the assessee does not fall within the restricted definition of "capital goods" under CCR Rule 2(a) such that the exclusion in Rule 2(k)(v)(c) would preclude its treatment as an "input." The Tribunal construed the terms of Rules 2(a) and 2(k) contextually, applying the proviso "unless the context otherwise requires," and concluded the expression "capital goods" in Rule 2(k) must be read consistently with Rule 2(a). Consequently the exclusion clause is inapplicable and the assessee is entitled to CENVAT credit in respect of the dredger.
CESTAT allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the Commissioner and held that the dredger imported by the assessee does not fall within the restricted definition of "capital goods" under CCR Rule 2(a) such that the exclusion in Rule 2(k)(v)(c) would preclude its treatment as an "input." The Tribunal construed the terms of Rules 2(a) and 2(k) contextually, applying the proviso "unless the context otherwise requires," and concluded the expression "capital goods" in Rule 2(k) must be read consistently with Rule 2(a). Consequently the exclusion clause is inapplicable and the assessee is entitled to CENVAT credit in respect of the dredger.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.