PMLA anticipatory bail requires satisfaction of twin conditions, while predicate-offence protection does not extend to independent money-laundering pr...
School-affiliation charges remain taxable where not directly connected with examinations, while extended limitation requires proof of deliberate tax e...
CESTAT ruled in favor of appellant regarding refund of Rs.16,14,167/- deposited as pre-deposit under Section 35F. The amount was determined to be a mandatory pre-deposit for appeal consideration rather than service tax liability, making Section 11B's limitation period inapplicable. The tribunal rejected the department's contention regarding time limitation and non-submission of reconciliation statements. The appellant was granted refund with 12% per annum interest from deposit date. The ruling clarified that statutory appeals under Section 35F are maintainable subject to compliance with statutory conditions, and pre-deposits are refundable upon successful appeal. Original order rejected, appeal allowed with costs.
CESTAT ruled in favor of appellant regarding refund of Rs.16,14,167/- deposited as pre-deposit under Section 35F. The amount was determined to be a mandatory pre-deposit for appeal consideration rather than service tax liability, making Section 11B's limitation period inapplicable. The tribunal rejected the department's contention regarding time limitation and non-submission of reconciliation statements. The appellant was granted refund with 12% per annum interest from deposit date. The ruling clarified that statutory appeals under Section 35F are maintainable subject to compliance with statutory conditions, and pre-deposits are refundable upon successful appeal. Original order rejected, appeal allowed with costs.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
