Steel-timber construction shuttering/formwork tariff classification dispute: essential character held steel, classified as shuttering under Heading 73...
Family-linked property purchases using fabricated loan agreements and benami-style arrangements held to be crime proceeds; attachment upheld, appeal d...
Charitable tree plantation and maintenance for environmental preservation treated as "charitable activity", exempt from GST under Notification 12/2017...
Extended limitation for recovery of alleged inadmissible CENVAT credit was rejected because the assessee had disclosed total credit in statutory returns and was not legally required to furnish invoice-wise particulars; with documents already filed with a refund claim, suppression was not established, so demand beyond the normal period was set aside, while demand within limitation for Apr-Sep 2011 survived. Credit on outdoor catering for Apr-Sep 2011 was disallowed due to post-1-4-2011 statutory exclusion of such services as employee personal consumption. Credit was also disallowed where invoices lacked mandatory service description under Rule 9(2), and for accommodation and gym equipment AMC as excluded personal-use services. Alleged double-demand required factual verification and was remanded; Section 78 penalty was set aside. - CESTAT
Extended limitation for recovery of alleged inadmissible CENVAT credit was rejected because the assessee had disclosed total credit in statutory returns and was not legally required to furnish invoice-wise particulars; with documents already filed with a refund claim, suppression was not established, so demand beyond the normal period was set aside, while demand within limitation for Apr-Sep 2011 survived. Credit on outdoor catering for Apr-Sep 2011 was disallowed due to post-1-4-2011 statutory exclusion of such services as employee personal consumption. Credit was also disallowed where invoices lacked mandatory service description under Rule 9(2), and for accommodation and gym equipment AMC as excluded personal-use services. Alleged double-demand required factual verification and was remanded; Section 78 penalty was set aside. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
