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 held that the show cause notice issued under Section 111 of the Finance Act, 2013 was time-barred. The appellant had filed a declaration on 31.12.2013 under the Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, but the notice was only served on 02.01.2015, beyond the statutory one-year limitation period. The Tribunal emphasized that "service" of notice must comply with statutory provisions, and neither issuance of the show cause notice nor pasting it on factory premises constituted proper service as required by law. Since the notice was not served within the prescribed time limit, all subsequent proceedings including demand confirmation were deemed non-maintainable. The appeal was allowed without examining the second ground regarding false declaration.
CESTAT held that the show cause notice issued under Section 111 of the Finance Act, 2013 was time-barred. The appellant had filed a declaration on 31.12.2013 under the Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, but the notice was only served on 02.01.2015, beyond the statutory one-year limitation period. The Tribunal emphasized that "service" of notice must comply with statutory provisions, and neither issuance of the show cause notice nor pasting it on factory premises constituted proper service as required by law. Since the notice was not served within the prescribed time limit, all subsequent proceedings including demand confirmation were deemed non-maintainable. The appeal was allowed without examining the second ground regarding false declaration.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
