Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
Wall rent paid for sites used to display advertisements was held includible in the taxable value of advertising agency service because it was an intrinsic and inseparable part of the service, and the assessee failed to establish a valid pure agent arrangement or direct contractual link between clients and wall owners. By contrast, the value of printed flex material supplied through a separately registered concern, separately invoiced and taxed as goods, was held not includible under the service tax valuation rules or Notification No. 12/2003-ST. The extended limitation period was rejected because suppression or wilful misstatement was not proved in an audit-based notice, and penalties were deleted as the dispute was interpretational.
Wall rent paid for sites used to display advertisements was held includible in the taxable value of advertising agency service because it was an intrinsic and inseparable part of the service, and the assessee failed to establish a valid pure agent arrangement or direct contractual link between clients and wall owners. By contrast, the value of printed flex material supplied through a separately registered concern, separately invoiced and taxed as goods, was held not includible under the service tax valuation rules or Notification No. 12/2003-ST. The extended limitation period was rejected because suppression or wilful misstatement was not proved in an audit-based notice, and penalties were deleted as the dispute was interpretational.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
