Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.