Just a moment...

Top
Help
Upgrade to AI Search

We've upgraded AI Search on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:

1. Basic
Quick overview summary answering your query with referencesCategory-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI

2. Advanced
• Includes everything in Basic
Detailed report covering:
     -   Overview Summary
     -   Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars]
     -   Relevant Case Laws
     -   Tariff / Classification / HSN
     -   Expert views from TaxTMI
     -   Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy

• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:

Explore AI Search

Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

Service tax demand on mining struck down; invalid Cenvat credit rejected; penalty under Section 78 set aside

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....The CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside the demand for service tax of Rs.4.67 crores on mining activities, holding such activities fall under the negative list and are not liable to service tax. The Tribunal also rejected the demand for recovery of irregularly availed Cenvat credit of over Rs.10.20 crores, noting that the invoices relied upon were invalid documents under the CCR, 2004, and that the appellant's director admitted non-payment of service tax by the sub-contractor. However, the extended period of limitation for credit denial was held unjustified, as no fraud or willful suppression was established, and the department relied solely on appellant-produced documents without independent investigation. Consequently, the penalty under section 78 was also set aside. The entire demand, both on merit and limitation grounds, was quashed, resulting in the appeal's allowance.....