Menu
Indirect taxes
In Usha Rectifier case Supreme Court held as "Demand - Deemed removal - Testing equipment manufactured for captive use - Contention that goods not taken out from premises, hence no duty leviable - Explanation to Rules 9 and 49 of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 provide that excisable goods manufactured and consumed or utilised as such deemed to have been removed - Duty payable - Sections 3 and 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944"
67/95 was not existing at that time
Raksh*t
09810525780
advrcverma @ gmail.com
In Usha Rectifier case Supreme Court held as "Demand - Deemed removal - Testing equipment manufactured for captive use - Contention that goods not taken out from premises, hence no duty leviable - Explanation to Rules 9 and 49 of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 provide that excisable goods manufactured and consumed or utilised as such deemed to have been removed - Duty payable - Sections 3 and 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944"
67/95 was not existing at that time
Raksh*t
09810525780
advrcverma @ gmail.com
Recent Topic
- CA FINAL FR IndAS 33 Illustrtion 14
- Taxation on Sale of old Jewellery Received at Marr
- ITR-3 Filling issues
- PF withdrawal and tax liability
- Sale of Goods or Services?
- ITR form query
- Credit against paud RCM on rent
- Dividend difference in 26AS, AIS, TIS
- 194JB INCOME
- Filing ITR3 where income under section 44AD with L
Related Topics
CAclubindia
