Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
CESTAT held that subcontracted works executed for authorised operations in an SEZ qualified for Notification No. 4/2004-S.T. because the services were for consumption within the SEZ and had Development Commissioner approval; exemption could not be denied merely because the appellant acted as a sub-contractor, so that demand was set aside. It also held that no time limit governed availment of Cenvat credit during the relevant period, so denial on delay was unsustainable; however, the credit issue was remanded for verification of invoices, documentary eligibility and tax payment. Demands for works contract services rendered outside the SEZ, supply of tangible goods, and collected service tax on road work were sustained with interest, while limitation was upheld for the non-SEZ demand. Penalties were set aside pending fresh quantification.
CESTAT held that subcontracted works executed for authorised operations in an SEZ qualified for Notification No. 4/2004-S.T. because the services were for consumption within the SEZ and had Development Commissioner approval; exemption could not be denied merely because the appellant acted as a sub-contractor, so that demand was set aside. It also held that no time limit governed availment of Cenvat credit during the relevant period, so denial on delay was unsustainable; however, the credit issue was remanded for verification of invoices, documentary eligibility and tax payment. Demands for works contract services rendered outside the SEZ, supply of tangible goods, and collected service tax on road work were sustained with interest, while limitation was upheld for the non-SEZ demand. Penalties were set aside pending fresh quantification.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
