Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
281 to 300 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" ?
The appellant entered into works contracts for providing services along with materials. The show cause notice proposed demand under "commercial and industrial construction service", but the impugned order confirmed demand under "works contract service" for the period after 1st June 2007, without giving an opportunity to defend against this head. The order travelled beyond the show cause notice by demanding tax under a different head, which is impermissible as per settled legal position. Consequently, the order was set aside by the Appellate Tribunal on this ground alone.
The appellant entered into works contracts for providing services along with materials. The show cause notice proposed demand under "commercial and industrial construction service", but the impugned order confirmed demand under "works contract service" for the period after 1st June 2007, without giving an opportunity to defend against this head. The order travelled beyond the show cause notice by demanding tax under a different head, which is impermissible as per settled legal position. Consequently, the order was set aside by the Appellate Tribunal on this ground alone.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.