Alternative statutory remedy and unexplained delay barred writ review of customs confiscation adjudication, leaving merits for appellate consideration...
Authorised courier due diligence protects against penalties where declared exports conceal prohibited goods despite proper documentation and customs p...
Customs-controlled container movement now extends to DP World facilities, subject to segregation, inspections, reconciliation, and EXIM cargo priority...
CESTAT allowed the appeal filed by a Central Para Military Force against service tax demand on notional value of facilities provided by SSP. The appellant had discharged service tax on consideration received for security services but the Department demanded tax on additional facilities like rent-free accommodation, office premises, electricity, vehicles, fuel, medical treatment, and stationery provided by SSP. The Tribunal held that without evidence of actual payment or quantified cost in the MOU, notional value cannot be included in taxable value under Section 67(1)(ii) of Finance Act, 1994 and Rule 3(3) of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. The Tribunal also found no suppression by the appellant to invoke extended limitation period. Following precedent in CGST CCE Dehradun v. Commandant CISF Unit, the demand was set aside on both merits and limitation grounds.
CESTAT allowed the appeal filed by a Central Para Military Force against service tax demand on notional value of facilities provided by SSP. The appellant had discharged service tax on consideration received for security services but the Department demanded tax on additional facilities like rent-free accommodation, office premises, electricity, vehicles, fuel, medical treatment, and stationery provided by SSP. The Tribunal held that without evidence of actual payment or quantified cost in the MOU, notional value cannot be included in taxable value under Section 67(1)(ii) of Finance Act, 1994 and Rule 3(3) of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. The Tribunal also found no suppression by the appellant to invoke extended limitation period. Following precedent in CGST CCE Dehradun v. Commandant CISF Unit, the demand was set aside on both merits and limitation grounds.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
