Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
