Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Automated Free Sale and Commerce Certificates enable paperless processing while retaining risk-based manual verification for selected exporter applica...
Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
The CESTAT set aside the demand for service tax on royalty charges under reverse charge, aligning with precedent that rights assigned predate payment terms. Denial of CENVAT credit on capital goods used partly for exempt services was reversed, recognizing credit eligibility where goods serve both taxable and exempt activities. However, the order was remanded regarding input service credit reversal, as the original authority failed to correctly apply proportionate reversal under Rule 6 of CCR, 2004. Service tax demands on works contract services were upheld, as the appellant failed to remit tax collected under specified work orders. Invocation of the extended limitation period was upheld due to non-cooperation and suppression of records during audit. Interest for delayed tax payment and penalties under Section 78 were confirmed. The appeal was allowed in part, with certain demands set aside and others restored or remanded for reassessment.
The CESTAT set aside the demand for service tax on royalty charges under reverse charge, aligning with precedent that rights assigned predate payment terms. Denial of CENVAT credit on capital goods used partly for exempt services was reversed, recognizing credit eligibility where goods serve both taxable and exempt activities. However, the order was remanded regarding input service credit reversal, as the original authority failed to correctly apply proportionate reversal under Rule 6 of CCR, 2004. Service tax demands on works contract services were upheld, as the appellant failed to remit tax collected under specified work orders. Invocation of the extended limitation period was upheld due to non-cooperation and suppression of records during audit. Interest for delayed tax payment and penalties under Section 78 were confirmed. The appeal was allowed in part, with certain demands set aside and others restored or remanded for reassessment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
