Anti-profiteering obligations survive business demerger, complaint withdrawal, and customized supply arrangements where rate-reduction benefits are no...
Road restoration charges constitute taxable services when requested for commercial pipeline activity, requiring reverse-charge GST from the business r...
Interest on delayed release of requisitioned cash includes statutory pre-assessment interest and restitutionary compensation for unlawful post-assessm...
Incomplete inventory records justify rejecting accounts, while profit estimation requires relevant comparable material and interest falls under other ...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires functional alignment; delayed associated-enterprise receivables need separate LIBOR-based benchmarking, while ...
The CESTAT held that the appellant is not liable to pay service tax under "Mining Services" for 2008-2017, as the activities of coal extraction and crushing amount to manufacture, attracting excise duty, not service tax. The appellant's payments of excise duty and VAT confirm this classification. Regarding sponsorship services, the Tribunal remanded the issue to the adjudicating authority for detailed examination of documentary evidence to distinguish between donations and sponsorships. The appellant was found compliant with Rule 6(3)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, as they maintained proper records and did not claim credit on exempted solar power services, negating the demand on this ground. Consequently, no penalty was imposed due to the absence of a sustainable demand. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
The CESTAT held that the appellant is not liable to pay service tax under "Mining Services" for 2008-2017, as the activities of coal extraction and crushing amount to manufacture, attracting excise duty, not service tax. The appellant's payments of excise duty and VAT confirm this classification. Regarding sponsorship services, the Tribunal remanded the issue to the adjudicating authority for detailed examination of documentary evidence to distinguish between donations and sponsorships. The appellant was found compliant with Rule 6(3)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, as they maintained proper records and did not claim credit on exempted solar power services, negating the demand on this ground. Consequently, no penalty was imposed due to the absence of a sustainable demand. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.