RETIRED FROM CEX.DEPT as Superintendent.(1975-2011)> Freelance Consultant. . Assistance provided in Procedural compliance,Audit follow up,Adjudication proceedings. Appearence and defend cases before Adjudicating Authorities, Appellate forums like Commissioner (Appeals) and CESTAT Benches. Can be contacted at: [email protected] mob. 9447498475
Showing 1 to 5 of 5 Results
Issue Id: 110981
In the pre negative list period ,shop rooms were given on rent for 2 years.However,tenant did not remit the rent afetr six months and also did not ...
Read Full Issue Service Tax
Issue Id: 110934
The refund procedures are made applicable from Central Excise Act,1944 as per sec 83 of Finance Act,1994. Section 11B envisages different ...
Read Full Issue Service Tax
Issue Id: 110830
Work allotted by Municipal corporation is to transport the Solid waste and garbage from collection points to the treatment plant.Lorries,JCB etc are ...
Read Full Issue Service Tax
Issue Id: 109971
Hope all of you must have seen the notification no.13/2016 ST as per which the rates have been fixed as 15 and 24% from the date of enactment of ...
Read Full Issue Service Tax
Issue Id: 5285
In the mega exemption notification no. 25/2012-ST dated 20/06/2012, the entry at sl. No.24 there under reads— “ ...
Read Full Issue Service Tax
Showing 1 to 3 of 3 Results
Compounding under sections 76 and 78 faces low uptake due to procedural defects denying cum duty and inflating assessments.
The amendment allows compounding by paying tax and interest within 30 days of an SCN or paying a reduced penalty under sections 76 and 78 even post adjudication, aiming to curb litigation. Uptake is hindered by procedural defects: denial of the Cum duty benefit, routine use of extended limitation periods with penalty proposals, reverse charge demands treated as suppression despite revenue neutrality, and inclusion of amounts already paid, all of which inflate demands. The author calls for CBEC guidance to correct these practices and encourage use of the compounding scheme. (AI Summary)
Service Tax
Notice service requirement: VCES eligibility hinges on actual service of notice rather than mere issuance, ensuring broader access.
VCES eligibility depends on whether a departmental notice was actually served before the cut off date rather than merely issued; "issued" in section 106(1) should be construed contextually as "served" in harmony with prior service provisions. The proviso barring declarations on the "same issue" requires a distinction between undisputed unpaid tax and a bona fide adjudicable issue-mere non payment allegations do not automatically trigger the bar. Given express cross references to earlier service tax provisions, a purposive construction is necessary to effectuate the scheme and avoid needless litigation. (AI Summary)
Service Tax
Post service representation by former officials: call to prohibit appearances before equal or subordinate adjudicators to prevent conflicts.
Senior retired tax officers commonly act as consultants who represent clients in personal hearings before quasi judicial authorities; section 35Q of the Central Excise Act contains no prohibition on such appearances, whereas Bar Council Rule 7 bars retired officers enrolled as advocates from practising before authorities presided by officers equivalent to or lower than their last post. The article proposes inserting a similar restraint into section 35Q and the corresponding customs provision (section 146A) to address conflicts of interest and preserve the appearance of impartiality. (AI Summary)
Other Topics