Authentication of paper assessment orders upheld, while qualifying repairs, consumables and vendor advance write-offs remain deductible business claim...
Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Page of 4782
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
301 to 320 of 95636 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 the marketing support services provided by the Appellants to Nokia Corporation Finland qualified as export of services, as the benefits accrued outside India. The taxable event is the rendition of service, not the payment date. Hence, service tax was rightly paid at 10.12%, the rate prevailing when services were rendered. The Appellants were eligible for abatement under Notification No. 1/2006-ST for turnkey projects involving supply of goods and services. The extended period of limitation was wrongly invoked by the Department, as it failed to substantiate allegations of willful suppression of facts by the Appellants. Consequently, the service tax demand was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the Appellants.
The CESTAT held that the marketing support services provided by the Appellants to Nokia Corporation Finland qualified as export of services, as the benefits accrued outside India. The taxable event is the rendition of service, not the payment date. Hence, service tax was rightly paid at 10.12%, the rate prevailing when services were rendered. The Appellants were eligible for abatement under Notification No. 1/2006-ST for turnkey projects involving supply of goods and services. The extended period of limitation was wrongly invoked by the Department, as it failed to substantiate allegations of willful suppression of facts by the Appellants. Consequently, the service tax demand was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the Appellants.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
