Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Nature of activity - sale or service - It is found from the fact on record that the “Shot Firers” are independent and technical expert to carry out the blasting, they are licensed with the Government’s Department of explosives. The revenue has not adduced any evidence to show that the “Shot Firers” were acting as an agent of the appellant. Therefore, the “Shot Firers” job was carried out not on the behalf of the appellant but on behalf of the buyer of the goods - In this fact the entire basis of the revenue that the “Shot Firers” have acted on behalf of the appellant is far from truth. Hence the entire foundation of the case gets demolished. - The activity undoubtedly is of sale of goods. The sale of goods does not attract Service Tax - AT
Nature of activity - sale or service - It is found from the fact on record that the “Shot Firers” are independent and technical expert to carry out the blasting, they are licensed with the Government’s Department of explosives. The revenue has not adduced any evidence to show that the “Shot Firers” were acting as an agent of the appellant. Therefore, the “Shot Firers” job was carried out not on the behalf of the appellant but on behalf of the buyer of the goods - In this fact the entire basis of the revenue that the “Shot Firers” have acted on behalf of the appellant is far from truth. Hence the entire foundation of the case gets demolished. - The activity undoubtedly is of sale of goods. The sale of goods does not attract Service Tax - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
