Transfer-pricing aggregation of distinct support-service and subcontract transactions was rejected, while debt-free receivables attracted no notional ...
Customs exemptions cover photovoltaic assembly machinery and PVF backsheets, while fully declared cleared imports may avoid confiscation and penalties...
Specific tariff classification for LCD devices overrides treatment as electricity-meter parts, defeating differential duty, extended limitation, and p...
Stayed disciplinary punishment does not establish unfitness for insolvency professional registration; reconsideration must disregard mere pendency of ...
Indirect corporate control can create related-party status, excluding financial creditors from Committee of Creditors representation, participation an...
Page of 4881
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 97618 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4881 
