Classification of imported salvaged shaft pieces as ship parts confirmed, reassessment time-barred and appeal allowed restoring original classificatio...
Scope of intermediary status for data hosting services: tribunal finds provider not intermediary, services exported and not taxable, limited remand on...
CENVAT credit availability after omission of Rule 12B in textiles confirmed; late addendum to SCN introducing new grounds held time-barred and invalid...
Export of Wheat Flour and related products subject to online allocation, eligibility criteria, non-transferable six-month authorisations and reporting...
The principal issue was whether the appellant's MM Plant qualified as a "new industrial unit" under the 1989 industrial policy rather than an expansion of an existing unit. Applying the policy's eligibility criteria for new units and noting the absence of cogent reasons to treat it as an expansion (including prior official classification as a new unit), the unit was held to be a new industrial unit, entitling it to incentives. The further issue was whether subsidies could be denied due to exhaustion of overall subsidy limits under earlier policies; this restriction was held applicable only to existing units seeking additional subsidy for expansion/modernisation/diversification, so rejection was unlawful. Based on clear representations and detrimental reliance, the State was held estopped from refusing disbursal; the HC order was set aside and subsidies directed. - SC
The principal issue was whether the appellant's MM Plant qualified as a "new industrial unit" under the 1989 industrial policy rather than an expansion of an existing unit. Applying the policy's eligibility criteria for new units and noting the absence of cogent reasons to treat it as an expansion (including prior official classification as a new unit), the unit was held to be a new industrial unit, entitling it to incentives. The further issue was whether subsidies could be denied due to exhaustion of overall subsidy limits under earlier policies; this restriction was held applicable only to existing units seeking additional subsidy for expansion/modernisation/diversification, so rejection was unlawful. Based on clear representations and detrimental reliance, the State was held estopped from refusing disbursal; the HC order was set aside and subsidies directed. - SC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
