Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The appeal challenged the legality of remanding the matter to the original authority and the legal authority of the Commissioner (Appeals) to do so during the relevant period. The Tribunal examined the impugned order and the appeal filed by the appellant in Form-4. It held that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not remanded the matter but had merely remarked that if challans evidencing deposit of service tax were produced, the amount already deposited may be adjusted against the demand. The Commissioner (Appeals) had upheld the order-in-original and rejected the appeal. The appellant's counsel had misunderstood these remarks as remanding the matter. The Tribunal found the impugned order correct and proper, dismissing the appeal.
The appeal challenged the legality of remanding the matter to the original authority and the legal authority of the Commissioner (Appeals) to do so during the relevant period. The Tribunal examined the impugned order and the appeal filed by the appellant in Form-4. It held that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not remanded the matter but had merely remarked that if challans evidencing deposit of service tax were produced, the amount already deposited may be adjusted against the demand. The Commissioner (Appeals) had upheld the order-in-original and rejected the appeal. The appellant's counsel had misunderstood these remarks as remanding the matter. The Tribunal found the impugned order correct and proper, dismissing the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
