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. The Tribunal held that a single appeal filed by the corporate headquarters representing multiple units under one PAN is maintainable because liabilities are consolidated at head office; Explanation (2) to Rule 6A does not compel separate appeals where noticees are not distinct legal entities. EPC/turnkey contracts were held divisible; supplies of equipment under separate sale contracts could not be aggregated into the value of works contracts for Service Tax. The extended period invocation was unwarranted for lack of fraud or suppression. Consequently tax demands, interest and penalties were quashed, and the penalty under s.78A on the managing director was set aside.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The Tribunal held that a single appeal filed by the corporate headquarters representing multiple units under one PAN is maintainable because liabilities are consolidated at head office; Explanation (2) to Rule 6A does not compel separate appeals where noticees are not distinct legal entities. EPC/turnkey contracts were held divisible; supplies of equipment under separate sale contracts could not be aggregated into the value of works contracts for Service Tax. The extended period invocation was unwarranted for lack of fraud or suppression. Consequently tax demands, interest and penalties were quashed, and the penalty under s.78A on the managing director was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.