Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
CESTAT allowed appeal against multiple service tax demands totaling Rs.1.83 crores. Primary demands included non-reversal of CENVAT credit on exempted services (Rs.1.00 crores), business support services (Rs.42.94 lakhs), and healthcare services. Tribunal found appellant had reversed CENVAT credit with interest, services were incorrectly classified under business support/auxiliary categories, and healthcare services were exempt being inpatient treatments. Revenue failed to prove suppression or willful misstatement warranting extended period under Section 73(1). Demands were either legally unsustainable or time-barred. Tribunal noted appellant's bona fides in paying service tax with interest wherever applicable, attributing non-compliance to interpretational difficulties rather than deliberate evasion.
CESTAT allowed appeal against multiple service tax demands totaling Rs.1.83 crores. Primary demands included non-reversal of CENVAT credit on exempted services (Rs.1.00 crores), business support services (Rs.42.94 lakhs), and healthcare services. Tribunal found appellant had reversed CENVAT credit with interest, services were incorrectly classified under business support/auxiliary categories, and healthcare services were exempt being inpatient treatments. Revenue failed to prove suppression or willful misstatement warranting extended period under Section 73(1). Demands were either legally unsustainable or time-barred. Tribunal noted appellant's bona fides in paying service tax with interest wherever applicable, attributing non-compliance to interpretational difficulties rather than deliberate evasion.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
