Tax appeal allowed: AO exceeded s.144C DRP mandate by introducing new findings and recharacterising non-resident receipts as permanent establishment i...
Anonymized petitioner gets partial relief: bank guarantee quashed, PVC-coated fabric released under reduced conditions while valuation proceedings con...
CESTAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the adjudicatory order in favour of the respondent. The Tribunal found the Department failed to produce the approved layout plan to demonstrate that roads were common facilities within the residential complex, placing the evidentiary burden on the Department; absent that proof the Commissioner(A) correctly applied the mega exemption. The review-cum-authorization order was held defective because the Committee of Commissioners improperly authorized the appeal in violation of statutory authorization requirements, and Section 35A(3) of the Central Excise Act was wrongly invoked in a service tax matter where Section 86(2A) of the Finance Act governs revision; consequently the appeal was not maintainable and was dismissed.
CESTAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the adjudicatory order in favour of the respondent. The Tribunal found the Department failed to produce the approved layout plan to demonstrate that roads were common facilities within the residential complex, placing the evidentiary burden on the Department; absent that proof the Commissioner(A) correctly applied the mega exemption. The review-cum-authorization order was held defective because the Committee of Commissioners improperly authorized the appeal in violation of statutory authorization requirements, and Section 35A(3) of the Central Excise Act was wrongly invoked in a service tax matter where Section 86(2A) of the Finance Act governs revision; consequently the appeal was not maintainable and was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
