Content ownership determines GST treatment of printed publications: customer-supplied text is a taxable printing service, owned content is exempt good...
Employee recoveries, input tax credit and notice pay recovery under GST: AAR distinguishes taxable supplies from non-taxable perquisites and penalties...
Job Work: The Tribunal observed that there was no evidence to substantiate the allegation that the appellant carried out activities amounting to 'manufacture' such as quality testing or labelling at their premises. Without identification and quantification of the goods allegedly manufactured, the show cause notice was deemed ex-facie bad in law. Consequently, the demand for central excise duty, interest, and penalties imposed on the appellant company and its partner were set aside. The Tribunal further held that since no suppression of facts with the intention to evade tax was established, invoking the extended period of limitation to demand duty was legally unsustainable.
Job Work: The Tribunal observed that there was no evidence to substantiate the allegation that the appellant carried out activities amounting to 'manufacture' such as quality testing or labelling at their premises. Without identification and quantification of the goods allegedly manufactured, the show cause notice was deemed ex-facie bad in law. Consequently, the demand for central excise duty, interest, and penalties imposed on the appellant company and its partner were set aside. The Tribunal further held that since no suppression of facts with the intention to evade tax was established, invoking the extended period of limitation to demand duty was legally unsustainable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
