Expenses for overseas film shooting treated as services availed outside India, so no reverse charge service tax liability; cenvat reversals and penalt...
Electricity consumptionbased clandestine production estimates under the repealed Central Excise Act found insufficient; demand quashed and appeals all...
A High Court considered preliminary objections to departmental appeals against an advance ruling and upheld their maintainability. It held that the 90-day period for passing the appellate order under Section 101(2) is directory, operating as an outer time limit and not a jurisdictional bar that nullifies the appeal on expiry. It also accepted the actual dates of communication for limitation purposes, found condonation competent where filed within the extended period, held that separate CGST and SGST officers had statutory appellate locus, and treated manual filing as a procedural issue not defeating the appeal. The Court further rejected estoppel and natural justice objections.
A High Court considered preliminary objections to departmental appeals against an advance ruling and upheld their maintainability. It held that the 90-day period for passing the appellate order under Section 101(2) is directory, operating as an outer time limit and not a jurisdictional bar that nullifies the appeal on expiry. It also accepted the actual dates of communication for limitation purposes, found condonation competent where filed within the extended period, held that separate CGST and SGST officers had statutory appellate locus, and treated manual filing as a procedural issue not defeating the appeal. The Court further rejected estoppel and natural justice objections.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
