Food import sampling requirements support provisional release where unseized consignments conform to standards and raw areca classification is unestab...
Diagnostic microcuvette classification follows sole-use analytical function, placing specialised disposable cuvettes with their analyser rather than g...
Customs Broker licensing proceedings fail when their offence-report foundation collapses and authorisation, advisory, and KYC duties remain unbreached...
Tariff classification of Digital Axle Counters affirmed as electro-mechanical railway signalling equipment, eliminating duty, confiscation and penalty...
Page of 4907
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
821 to 840 of 98136 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The case involved a dispute regarding the applicability of service tax on corporate guarantee fees u/s 65(12)(a)(ix) of the Finance Act. The tribunal held that providing a corporate guarantee does not constitute Banking and Other Financial Services (BOFS) and is not related to lending activity. Citing precedents, the tribunal concluded that the corporate guarantee does not fall within the ambit of lending activity. The demand for service tax u/s reverse charge mechanism prior to 01.07.2012 was set aside as corporate guarantee does not qualify as BOFS. For the period post 01.07.2012, since the appellant had already paid the tax liability, it cannot be demanded again. The tribunal also found that the invocation of the extended period was unjustified as there was no evidence of mala fide intention to evade payment. Consequently, the demand for the period from 2009-2010 to 1st July 2012 was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
The case involved a dispute regarding the applicability of service tax on corporate guarantee fees u/s 65(12)(a)(ix) of the Finance Act. The tribunal held that providing a corporate guarantee does not constitute Banking and Other Financial Services (BOFS) and is not related to lending activity. Citing precedents, the tribunal concluded that the corporate guarantee does not fall within the ambit of lending activity. The demand for service tax u/s reverse charge mechanism prior to 01.07.2012 was set aside as corporate guarantee does not qualify as BOFS. For the period post 01.07.2012, since the appellant had already paid the tax liability, it cannot be demanded again. The tribunal also found that the invocation of the extended period was unjustified as there was no evidence of mala fide intention to evade payment. Consequently, the demand for the period from 2009-2010 to 1st July 2012 was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4907 
