Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
A pure question of law bearing on taxability could be raised before the Tribunal even if not taken earlier, as Rule 10 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 permits additional grounds subject to hearing the other side. The service tax demand for April 2009 to June 2010 failed because it related to the same residential project already dealt with in the appellant's own case, where the earlier order had been set aside; the present demand had no surviving foundation and was also set aside. For July 2010 to March 2011, the demand under construction of complex service was unsustainable because the activity was composite in nature, as reflected by the abatement granted in the notice, and post-01.07.2010 such activity fell outside that category.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.