Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
The case involves a refund of service tax paid by the appellant for works contract services related to a drinking water supply pipeline project. The issue addressed was whether the activity qualifies as a taxable service under "Work Contract Service." The Tribunal held that the appellant is not liable for service tax as the project was for non-commercial, non-industrial purposes. The refund claims were contested u/s 11B of the Central Excise Act, but the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating the service tax was paid under a mistake of law. Additionally, the claim was not barred by unjust enrichment as the appellant bore the tax burden. The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to process the refund claim promptly.
The case involves a refund of service tax paid by the appellant for works contract services related to a drinking water supply pipeline project. The issue addressed was whether the activity qualifies as a taxable service under "Work Contract Service." The Tribunal held that the appellant is not liable for service tax as the project was for non-commercial, non-industrial purposes. The refund claims were contested u/s 11B of the Central Excise Act, but the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating the service tax was paid under a mistake of law. Additionally, the claim was not barred by unjust enrichment as the appellant bore the tax burden. The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to process the refund claim promptly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
