Authentication of paper assessment orders upheld, while qualifying repairs, consumables and vendor advance write-offs remain deductible business claim...
Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Tariff classification of vehicle gear components follows the specific gearing entry, displacing motor-vehicle parts classification and related liabili...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
381 to 400 of 95715 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The CESTAT allowed the appeal, holding that the demand for recovery of service tax with interest and penalty based on alleged suppression of material facts was unsustainable. The appellant had filed returns for both halves of FY 2014-15, declaring taxable service value and paying due service tax. The Show Cause Notice failed to establish willful suppression or intent to evade tax, a necessary prerequisite for invoking the extended limitation period. Mere bald allegations were insufficient to justify extended period invocation. Consequently, the demand issued beyond the normal limitation period was barred. The tribunal refrained from addressing other contentions, deciding solely on limitation grounds.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal, holding that the demand for recovery of service tax with interest and penalty based on alleged suppression of material facts was unsustainable. The appellant had filed returns for both halves of FY 2014-15, declaring taxable service value and paying due service tax. The Show Cause Notice failed to establish willful suppression or intent to evade tax, a necessary prerequisite for invoking the extended limitation period. Mere bald allegations were insufficient to justify extended period invocation. Consequently, the demand issued beyond the normal limitation period was barred. The tribunal refrained from addressing other contentions, deciding solely on limitation grounds.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
