Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
CESTAT allowed the appeal: amounts collected as "lease money" were held not to be consideration for renting immovable property but merely mandated collections remitted to the State, therefore no service and no taxable consideration - demands on that count quashed; payments to an individual engaged by the appellant were characterised as salary/wages, not manpower supply agency services, so that demand was set aside; invocation of the extended period of limitation for irregular CENVAT credit was rejected because routine self-assessment and audit detection do not satisfy the statutory requisites for extension; consequential penalties under sections 77 and 78 (Appellant 1) and section 78 (Appellant 2) were set aside. Appeal disposed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
