Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding that the service tax demand was unsustainable. The Tribunal found the demand rested solely on Form 26AS and third-party data without examination of reasons for variance, exemptions or abatements, and that the appellant had maintained records and sought rectification which remained undecided. The appellant qualified for SSI threshold exemption and filed nil returns accordingly; thus the department's presumption that differential receipts were taxable consideration was impermissible. Invocation of the extended period was held improper and the show-cause notice was time-barred. Consequently the demand and penalty were quashed and the appeal was allowed.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding that the service tax demand was unsustainable. The Tribunal found the demand rested solely on Form 26AS and third-party data without examination of reasons for variance, exemptions or abatements, and that the appellant had maintained records and sought rectification which remained undecided. The appellant qualified for SSI threshold exemption and filed nil returns accordingly; thus the department's presumption that differential receipts were taxable consideration was impermissible. Invocation of the extended period was held improper and the show-cause notice was time-barred. Consequently the demand and penalty were quashed and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
