Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
The case before CESTAT Chandigarh involved the levy of service tax on "liquidated damages in contracts" for penalty/late delivery charges, under section 66E (e) of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant, a Central Government Public Sector Undertaking, challenged the tax liability. The Tribunal referred to a recent circular by the Department of Revenue stating no liability for service tax/GST on such damages. Previous Tribunal decisions supported the appellant's position that these damages are not subject to service tax. CESTAT held the impugned order as legally unsustainable and allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief as per law.
The case before CESTAT Chandigarh involved the levy of service tax on "liquidated damages in contracts" for penalty/late delivery charges, under section 66E (e) of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant, a Central Government Public Sector Undertaking, challenged the tax liability. The Tribunal referred to a recent circular by the Department of Revenue stating no liability for service tax/GST on such damages. Previous Tribunal decisions supported the appellant's position that these damages are not subject to service tax. CESTAT held the impugned order as legally unsustainable and allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief as per law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
