Notification No. 12/97-Customs(N.T.) amendment adds Malur Inland Container Depot in Karnataka to authorized locations for import unloading and export ...
CESTAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the departmental demand for service tax, finding that the facilities were developed for commercial use and therefore not eligible for the exemption relied upon. The Tribunal held the appellant and the contracting authority acted as intermediaries for a government-funded project to be owned and operated by a project society, with revenue-generating leases to an operator; accordingly the exemption was inapplicable. CESTAT sustained invocation of the extended limitation period under the proviso to section 73, held suppression with intent to evade tax proved, and affirmed imposition of penalty under section 78 and interest under section 75 of the Finance Act. All reliefs claimed by the appellant were rejected.
CESTAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the departmental demand for service tax, finding that the facilities were developed for commercial use and therefore not eligible for the exemption relied upon. The Tribunal held the appellant and the contracting authority acted as intermediaries for a government-funded project to be owned and operated by a project society, with revenue-generating leases to an operator; accordingly the exemption was inapplicable. CESTAT sustained invocation of the extended limitation period under the proviso to section 73, held suppression with intent to evade tax proved, and affirmed imposition of penalty under section 78 and interest under section 75 of the Finance Act. All reliefs claimed by the appellant were rejected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
