Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
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 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
