Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
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 
