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...
Levy of service tax on intellectual property rights (IPR) services, particularly the transfer of goodwill. It clarifies that goodwill is distinct from trademarks and is not recognized as an intangible property under intellectual property laws in India. The case establishes that the transfer involved the goodwill of a business, not just a trademark, and hence the service tax demand based on treating it as an IPR service is set aside. It also addresses issues related to manpower recruitment or supply agency services, the extended period of limitation, and penalties. The tribunal held that the services provided were business support services, not manpower supply, the extended period was wrongly invoked as there was no suppression of facts, and penalties were not warranted as there was no deliberate defiance or disregard of obligations.
Levy of service tax on intellectual property rights (IPR) services, particularly the transfer of goodwill. It clarifies that goodwill is distinct from trademarks and is not recognized as an intangible property under intellectual property laws in India. The case establishes that the transfer involved the goodwill of a business, not just a trademark, and hence the service tax demand based on treating it as an IPR service is set aside. It also addresses issues related to manpower recruitment or supply agency services, the extended period of limitation, and penalties. The tribunal held that the services provided were business support services, not manpower supply, the extended period was wrongly invoked as there was no suppression of facts, and penalties were not warranted as there was no deliberate defiance or disregard of obligations.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.