Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1161 to 1180 of 95957 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 allowed the appeal, holding that the appellants' corrugated boxes are classifiable under tariff item 4819 1010 and the associated rolls, stiffeners and liners are classifiable as parts under tariff item 4819 1090, thus eligible for the concessional Basic Excise Duty rate prescribed for chapter heading 4819 10. The Tribunal found the impugned adjudication and order dated 03.02.2015, which denied the concessional rate and imposed penalties, to be legally unsustainable and set aside the confirmed demands and penalties. The bench relied on established administrative clarification and prior coordinate-bench authority to treat the disputed items as integral parts of corrugated boxes for classification and concessional duty purposes.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal, holding that the appellants' corrugated boxes are classifiable under tariff item 4819 1010 and the associated rolls, stiffeners and liners are classifiable as parts under tariff item 4819 1090, thus eligible for the concessional Basic Excise Duty rate prescribed for chapter heading 4819 10. The Tribunal found the impugned adjudication and order dated 03.02.2015, which denied the concessional rate and imposed penalties, to be legally unsustainable and set aside the confirmed demands and penalties. The bench relied on established administrative clarification and prior coordinate-bench authority to treat the disputed items as integral parts of corrugated boxes for classification and concessional duty purposes.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.