Belated Form 10B filing during Covid-19 cannot defeat charitable exemption where genuine hardship warrants condonation and substantial justice prevail...
Limitation for consequential assessments runs from prescribed authority receipt, while verified purchases cannot be disallowed merely for unanswered s...
Higher depreciation for qualifying commercial vehicles, exempt-income disallowance, research deduction verification, and club-expense treatment clarif...
Charitable registration renewal cannot become an assessment of receipts, profitability or annual exemption compliance, requiring renewal and donation ...
AMP expenditure for own business is not an international transaction without an associated-enterprise arrangement, eliminating transfer pricing adjust...
No duty was payable on free warranty replacement inputs where the value of warranty was already embedded in the final product and the cleared goods fell within the scope of inputs used for providing free warranty under Notification No. 3/2011-CE (NT). The Tribunal held that the appellant's differential treatment between removed inputs and manufactured goods did not justify a duty demand, and the demand was unsustainable. On debit notes raised for repair charges on damaged inputs, the Tribunal found no evidence that the inputs were not subsequently used in manufacture; in the absence of proof of non-use, CENVAT credit remained admissible and duty could not be demanded on that basis. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal allowed.
No duty was payable on free warranty replacement inputs where the value of warranty was already embedded in the final product and the cleared goods fell within the scope of inputs used for providing free warranty under Notification No. 3/2011-CE (NT). The Tribunal held that the appellant's differential treatment between removed inputs and manufactured goods did not justify a duty demand, and the demand was unsustainable. On debit notes raised for repair charges on damaged inputs, the Tribunal found no evidence that the inputs were not subsequently used in manufacture; in the absence of proof of non-use, CENVAT credit remained admissible and duty could not be demanded on that basis. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.