Assessment time-barred u/s 153 due to missing competent-authority reference for Singapore exchange of information; assessment disallowed as barred by ...
Imported menthol-scented sweet supari classification dispute: seizure quashed, release for home consumption subject to duty bond; bank guarantee refus...
CKD/SKD air-conditioner components classifiable with finished units by essential character; prior advance ruling extended three years, FTA benefits po...
Scope of judicial review under Article 226: supervisory, not appellate; factual reappraisal barred, challenge dismissed; insolvency professional dutie...
Retail sale value of franchisor's products was not excludible from the taxable value of beauty parlour services because the assessee failed to produce contemporaneous invoices/bills in the contractually prescribed manner and produced no VAT registration or VAT payment evidence, defeating the plea of independent sale; consequently, service tax demand was sustained. CENVAT credit was held inadmissible as it was never taken during the relevant period/adjudication and, in any event, cannot be availed beyond the prescribed time-limit as settled by binding Larger Bench law; consequently, credit benefit was denied. Extended limitation was upheld due to suppression with intent to evade, evidenced by non-payment and non-filing of returns despite registration; consequently, demand, interest, and Section 77(2) penalty were upheld, with Section 78 penalty modified, and the appeal dismissed - CESTAT
Retail sale value of franchisor's products was not excludible from the taxable value of beauty parlour services because the assessee failed to produce contemporaneous invoices/bills in the contractually prescribed manner and produced no VAT registration or VAT payment evidence, defeating the plea of independent sale; consequently, service tax demand was sustained. CENVAT credit was held inadmissible as it was never taken during the relevant period/adjudication and, in any event, cannot be availed beyond the prescribed time-limit as settled by binding Larger Bench law; consequently, credit benefit was denied. Extended limitation was upheld due to suppression with intent to evade, evidenced by non-payment and non-filing of returns despite registration; consequently, demand, interest, and Section 77(2) penalty were upheld, with Section 78 penalty modified, and the appeal dismissed - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
