Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The CESTAT held that electricity generated by the appellant constitutes "excisable goods" under Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as it is specified in the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (Tariff Item No. 2716 0000) and is marketable. Despite the absence of a prescribed excise duty rate for electricity, it qualifies as excisable goods. Regarding the levy of service tax, the Tribunal distinguished the transaction as a contract of sale rather than a service contract. Following precedent affirmed by the Supreme Court, it was held that no service tax is leviable on the sale of electricity. Consequently, the impugned order demanding service tax was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.
The CESTAT held that electricity generated by the appellant constitutes "excisable goods" under Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as it is specified in the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (Tariff Item No. 2716 0000) and is marketable. Despite the absence of a prescribed excise duty rate for electricity, it qualifies as excisable goods. Regarding the levy of service tax, the Tribunal distinguished the transaction as a contract of sale rather than a service contract. Following precedent affirmed by the Supreme Court, it was held that no service tax is leviable on the sale of electricity. Consequently, the impugned order demanding service tax was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
