<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Single corporate HQ appeal maintainable for multiple units under one PAN; Explanation (2) to Rule 6A, s.78A relief</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93723</link>
    <description>CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The Tribunal held that a single appeal filed by the corporate headquarters representing multiple units under one PAN is maintainable because liabilities are consolidated at head office; Explanation (2) to Rule 6A does not compel separate appeals where noticees are not distinct legal entities. EPC/turnkey contracts were held divisible; supplies of equipment under separate sale contracts could not be aggregated into the value of works contracts for Service Tax. The extended period invocation was unwarranted for lack of fraud or suppression. Consequently tax demands, interest and penalties were quashed, and the penalty under s.78A on the managing director was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 Oct 2025 08:23:13 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 31 Oct 2025 08:23:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=861346" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Single corporate HQ appeal maintainable for multiple units under one PAN; Explanation (2) to Rule 6A, s.78A relief</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93723</link>
      <description>CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The Tribunal held that a single appeal filed by the corporate headquarters representing multiple units under one PAN is maintainable because liabilities are consolidated at head office; Explanation (2) to Rule 6A does not compel separate appeals where noticees are not distinct legal entities. EPC/turnkey contracts were held divisible; supplies of equipment under separate sale contracts could not be aggregated into the value of works contracts for Service Tax. The extended period invocation was unwarranted for lack of fraud or suppression. Consequently tax demands, interest and penalties were quashed, and the penalty under s.78A on the managing director was set aside.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Oct 2025 08:23:13 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93723</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>