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 4816
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
641 to 660 of 96301 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 held that the appellant's training programme, approved by the Ministry of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship and conducted as a partner of the National Skill Development Corporation, qualifies for exemption from service tax under Sl. No. 9A of Notification No. 25/2012-ST. The Tribunal found the programme falls within the scope of approved vocational education courses eligible for exemption under Section 66D(1)(iii) of the Finance Act, 1994, rendering further discussion on this ground unnecessary. Regarding limitation, the Department's prior knowledge and acknowledgement of the appellant's activities precluded invocation of the extended period for tax recovery, as no suppression of facts was established. Accordingly, the demand confirmed against the appellant was set aside on limitation grounds. The appeal was allowed, with no service tax liability confirmed against the appellant.
The CESTAT held that the appellant's training programme, approved by the Ministry of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship and conducted as a partner of the National Skill Development Corporation, qualifies for exemption from service tax under Sl. No. 9A of Notification No. 25/2012-ST. The Tribunal found the programme falls within the scope of approved vocational education courses eligible for exemption under Section 66D(1)(iii) of the Finance Act, 1994, rendering further discussion on this ground unnecessary. Regarding limitation, the Department's prior knowledge and acknowledgement of the appellant's activities precluded invocation of the extended period for tax recovery, as no suppression of facts was established. Accordingly, the demand confirmed against the appellant was set aside on limitation grounds. The appeal was allowed, with no service tax liability confirmed against the appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
