ESOP expenditure allowed as FMV difference; long-term capital gain issue sent back for collector rate determination; deferred income additions disallo...
Appeal allowed; impugned order quashed as regulator failed to prove nexus or manipulative scheme; sale genuine - s.12A(a)-(c), Regs 3(a)-(d),4(1),4(2)...
Appellant's ring-back tone service held OIDAR, taxable domestically for 01.07.2012-31.07.2016; liability confirmed, penalties vacated, remanded for re...
CESTAT partly allowed the appeal. The tribunal affirmed that Rs.3,73,977 was correctly excluded from assessment under Rule 6(1) of the Central Excise Rules, but upheld a tax demand of Rs.10,75,681 for the post-POTR period and confirmed an additional service-tax liability of Rs.14,84,423 for lack of verifiable CENVAT reversal, all recoverable with interest. Invocation of the extended period was rejected for lack of willful suppression; the demand falls within the normal limitation period. Penalties under ss.77 and 78, FA 1994, were set aside on merits; consequently no waiver under s.80 was necessary. The appeal was therefore partly allowed.
CESTAT partly allowed the appeal. The tribunal affirmed that Rs.3,73,977 was correctly excluded from assessment under Rule 6(1) of the Central Excise Rules, but upheld a tax demand of Rs.10,75,681 for the post-POTR period and confirmed an additional service-tax liability of Rs.14,84,423 for lack of verifiable CENVAT reversal, all recoverable with interest. Invocation of the extended period was rejected for lack of willful suppression; the demand falls within the normal limitation period. Penalties under ss.77 and 78, FA 1994, were set aside on merits; consequently no waiver under s.80 was necessary. The appeal was therefore partly allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4824 
Join Channel 
