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...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 95875 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The CESTAT held that a "deemed sale" under Article 366(29A)(d) of the Constitution had occurred when the appellant granted the right to use the brewery license to Skol/Sab Miller through the License Agreement. The consideration received by the appellant under the License Agreement cannot be subjected to service tax or clubbed with the consideration under the Lease Deed for "renting of immovable property" service. The Commissioner's findings to the contrary were set aside. The License Agreement and Lease Deed were separate documents, and merely because the Lease Deed mentioned procuring an endorsement/sub-license, it did not make the License Agreement an integral part of the Lease Deed. The License Agreement gave complete freedom to Skol/Sab Miller to operate the brewery without hindrance. The Commissioner's reasoning that no "sale" took place due to restrictions was incorrect, as a "deemed sale" under Article 366(29A)(d) is distinct from a regular "sale." Consequently, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner adjudicating the show cause notices was set aside.
The CESTAT held that a "deemed sale" under Article 366(29A)(d) of the Constitution had occurred when the appellant granted the right to use the brewery license to Skol/Sab Miller through the License Agreement. The consideration received by the appellant under the License Agreement cannot be subjected to service tax or clubbed with the consideration under the Lease Deed for "renting of immovable property" service. The Commissioner's findings to the contrary were set aside. The License Agreement and Lease Deed were separate documents, and merely because the Lease Deed mentioned procuring an endorsement/sub-license, it did not make the License Agreement an integral part of the Lease Deed. The License Agreement gave complete freedom to Skol/Sab Miller to operate the brewery without hindrance. The Commissioner's reasoning that no "sale" took place due to restrictions was incorrect, as a "deemed sale" under Article 366(29A)(d) is distinct from a regular "sale." Consequently, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner adjudicating the show cause notices was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
