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...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
341 to 360 of 96001 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT held that an Amway distributor is liable for service tax on commission received from sales group performance, categorizing it as Business Auxiliary Service. The tribunal upheld service tax demand while granting cum-duty benefits and rejecting extended limitation period of 5 years. The court recognized the distributor's lack of intentional tax evasion and set aside penalties under Sections 78 and 77. The appeal was partially allowed, modifying the original order to reflect these nuanced determinations regarding service tax liability and procedural considerations.
CESTAT held that an Amway distributor is liable for service tax on commission received from sales group performance, categorizing it as Business Auxiliary Service. The tribunal upheld service tax demand while granting cum-duty benefits and rejecting extended limitation period of 5 years. The court recognized the distributor's lack of intentional tax evasion and set aside penalties under Sections 78 and 77. The appeal was partially allowed, modifying the original order to reflect these nuanced determinations regarding service tax liability and procedural considerations.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.