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...
CESTAT adjudicated a service tax dispute involving compensation for lost drilling equipment. The tribunal held that compensation for "Lost-in-Hole" items constitutes accidental damages not relatable to service provisions and therefore cannot be included in taxable service value. The Additional Director General's attempt to invoke extended limitation period was rejected, as there was no willful suppression or intent to evade tax. The audit records demonstrated transparency, and mere procedural oversight did not justify extended limitation. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the tax demand for both the standard and extended periods based on the absence of fraudulent intent and improper valuation of taxable services.
CESTAT adjudicated a service tax dispute involving compensation for lost drilling equipment. The tribunal held that compensation for "Lost-in-Hole" items constitutes accidental damages not relatable to service provisions and therefore cannot be included in taxable service value. The Additional Director General's attempt to invoke extended limitation period was rejected, as there was no willful suppression or intent to evade tax. The audit records demonstrated transparency, and mere procedural oversight did not justify extended limitation. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the tax demand for both the standard and extended periods based on the absence of fraudulent intent and improper valuation of taxable services.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
