Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1181 to 1200 of 96046 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.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
