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 a governmental authority's tax liability. The tribunal rejected the appellant's claims of exemption under Notification No.25/2012-ST, finding no merit in their arguments about agricultural extension services. The tribunal determined that the appellant deliberately suppressed service tax information in ST-3 returns, warranting invocation of extended limitation period. The tribunal found the appellant's services taxable under the Finance Act, 1994, and upheld penalties under Sections 77 and 78. Ultimately, the appeal was partially allowed, with the case remanded to the original authority to recompute tax demand while allowing cum tax benefit, recognizing that service tax was not separately collected from service recipients.
CESTAT adjudicated a service tax dispute involving a governmental authority's tax liability. The tribunal rejected the appellant's claims of exemption under Notification No.25/2012-ST, finding no merit in their arguments about agricultural extension services. The tribunal determined that the appellant deliberately suppressed service tax information in ST-3 returns, warranting invocation of extended limitation period. The tribunal found the appellant's services taxable under the Finance Act, 1994, and upheld penalties under Sections 77 and 78. Ultimately, the appeal was partially allowed, with the case remanded to the original authority to recompute tax demand while allowing cum tax benefit, recognizing that service tax was not separately collected from service recipients.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
