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...
The appellant sub-contractor was not eligible for exemption under S.No.12(d) of Notification 25/2012 for services provided to the principal contractor engaged in dam construction by the Government. Their activities of site formation, excavation, etc. did not strictly fall within "by way of construction" of dam under strict interpretation. Even if provided indirectly through the contractor, their services were not covered by the exemption notification. Their activities could not be considered works contract service eligible for exemption under S.No.29(h) due to lack of transfer of property. The extended period of limitation was rightly invoked as the appellant did not have a bona fide belief of non-taxability. The appeal against confirmed service tax demand was dismissed by CESTAT.
The appellant sub-contractor was not eligible for exemption under S.No.12(d) of Notification 25/2012 for services provided to the principal contractor engaged in dam construction by the Government. Their activities of site formation, excavation, etc. did not strictly fall within "by way of construction" of dam under strict interpretation. Even if provided indirectly through the contractor, their services were not covered by the exemption notification. Their activities could not be considered works contract service eligible for exemption under S.No.29(h) due to lack of transfer of property. The extended period of limitation was rightly invoked as the appellant did not have a bona fide belief of non-taxability. The appeal against confirmed service tax demand was dismissed by CESTAT.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
