Reassessment under s.148A held valid; s.69 additions totaling Rs.7,00,000 deleted after acceptable contemporaneous explanations for property investmen...
Adjudication set aside; Rule 9 valuation based on internet engineer report quashed for Rule 3(4) non-compliance; Section 138B cross-examination requir...
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the service-tax demand. The Tribunal held that the appellant, a wholly government-owned and controlled autonomous unit funded by grant-in-aid and staffed by government employees to perform strategic R&D, does not qualify as a "business entity" under the statutory definition and is barred from commercial activity. The security service was rendered by CISF, a statutory Union body performing its sovereign duty to protect vital installations. Because the appellant does not carry on industry or commerce and is not a factory registrant, the CISF's security service to the appellant is not taxable; the Commissioner's finding of commercial activity was overturned.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the service-tax demand. The Tribunal held that the appellant, a wholly government-owned and controlled autonomous unit funded by grant-in-aid and staffed by government employees to perform strategic R&D, does not qualify as a "business entity" under the statutory definition and is barred from commercial activity. The security service was rendered by CISF, a statutory Union body performing its sovereign duty to protect vital installations. Because the appellant does not carry on industry or commerce and is not a factory registrant, the CISF's security service to the appellant is not taxable; the Commissioner's finding of commercial activity was overturned.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.