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...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95714 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Service tax demand and interest were raised on the amount towards provident fund. Penalties u/ss 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 were imposed. The extended period of limitation u/s 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 was invoked. The appellant was aware of providing taxable services and short-paid service tax, despite issuing invoices indicating service tax payable and collecting it from the service recipient. They did not file ST-3 returns on time as specified by law, suppressing information with the intent to evade taxes. The demand by invoking the extended period and imposing penalties cannot be disputed. The appellant's submissions were inconsistent, initially not contesting the show cause notice but later challenging the applicable rates without substantiation. The CESTAT rejected the challenge to the First Appellate authority's order, finding no merit.
Service tax demand and interest were raised on the amount towards provident fund. Penalties u/ss 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 were imposed. The extended period of limitation u/s 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 was invoked. The appellant was aware of providing taxable services and short-paid service tax, despite issuing invoices indicating service tax payable and collecting it from the service recipient. They did not file ST-3 returns on time as specified by law, suppressing information with the intent to evade taxes. The demand by invoking the extended period and imposing penalties cannot be disputed. The appellant's submissions were inconsistent, initially not contesting the show cause notice but later challenging the applicable rates without substantiation. The CESTAT rejected the challenge to the First Appellate authority's order, finding no merit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
