Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
CESTAT held that the construction services rendered by the appellant to a State power corporation for Almatti Dam Power House and appurtenant structures formed an integral part of dam construction and were therefore excluded from the levy of service tax under the relevant exemption. The impugned order denying exemption was set aside on merits. However, as the appellant had voluntarily paid service tax under the respective service heads pursuant to audit observations, CESTAT held that any refund could only be claimed in accordance with Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as applied to service tax, including the statutory limitation period. The appeal was allowed on merits and the original authority was directed to process the refund in terms of Section 11B(5)(ec).
CESTAT held that the construction services rendered by the appellant to a State power corporation for Almatti Dam Power House and appurtenant structures formed an integral part of dam construction and were therefore excluded from the levy of service tax under the relevant exemption. The impugned order denying exemption was set aside on merits. However, as the appellant had voluntarily paid service tax under the respective service heads pursuant to audit observations, CESTAT held that any refund could only be claimed in accordance with Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as applied to service tax, including the statutory limitation period. The appeal was allowed on merits and the original authority was directed to process the refund in terms of Section 11B(5)(ec).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
