Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
The appellant's activity of subscription and redemption of mutual fund units cannot be considered as trading of securities, thus not qualifying as an exempted service u/s 66D(e) of the Finance Act. Additionally, investment in mutual funds does not constitute a 'service' u/s 65B(44) of the Finance Act, as there is no service provider rendering a service to a recipient for consideration. Consequently, proportionate reversal of CENVAT credit availed on common input services was not required. The extended period of limitation invoked by the department was unjustified, as the responsibility to scrutinize returns and make correct assessments lies with the officer. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
The appellant's activity of subscription and redemption of mutual fund units cannot be considered as trading of securities, thus not qualifying as an exempted service u/s 66D(e) of the Finance Act. Additionally, investment in mutual funds does not constitute a 'service' u/s 65B(44) of the Finance Act, as there is no service provider rendering a service to a recipient for consideration. Consequently, proportionate reversal of CENVAT credit availed on common input services was not required. The extended period of limitation invoked by the department was unjustified, as the responsibility to scrutinize returns and make correct assessments lies with the officer. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
