Jurisdictional facts in certificate-of-origin discrepancies can support customs show-cause proceedings, leaving factual explanations for departmental ...
Market value for captive electricity consumption follows industrial consumer tariffs, supporting profit computation for the power generation deduction...
The CESTAT allowed the appeal of M/s X against the impugned order, setting aside the service tax demand of Rs. 2,22,51,053/- on amounts wrongly treated as taxable advances, holding them to be refundable loans not linked to any taxable service. The Tribunal further held that the service tax demand of Rs. 16,44,878/- under RCM on imported services was unsustainable, being a revenue-neutral situation, and also barred by limitation as the extended period could not be invoked through a third SCN on the same issue. Consequently, interest and penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 were quashed. However, late fee of Rs. 21,700/- for delayed ST-3 returns was upheld, subject to adjustment of Rs. 7,900/- already paid.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal of M/s X against the impugned order, setting aside the service tax demand of Rs. 2,22,51,053/- on amounts wrongly treated as taxable advances, holding them to be refundable loans not linked to any taxable service. The Tribunal further held that the service tax demand of Rs. 16,44,878/- under RCM on imported services was unsustainable, being a revenue-neutral situation, and also barred by limitation as the extended period could not be invoked through a third SCN on the same issue. Consequently, interest and penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 were quashed. However, late fee of Rs. 21,700/- for delayed ST-3 returns was upheld, subject to adjustment of Rs. 7,900/- already paid.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
