Working-capital adjustment determines whether software-services transfer-pricing margins fall within the statutory tolerance range, eliminating any ad...
Permanent establishment deductions upheld for expatriate salaries, direct costs and trading losses, while head-office costs require fresh classificati...
Data transmission equipment classification under CTSH 8517 62 remains distinct from residual classification, with exemption evidence requiring scrutin...
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dismissed the Revenue's appeal. It held that the transaction between the parties constituted a job work arrangement, not a 'supply of tangible goods for use service'. The respondent installed machinery at the client's factory premises to carry out production activities using their own machines. No lease rent or consideration was charged for the 'supply of tangible goods for use'. The charges collected were for the production process on a job work basis, as evident from the invoices. Therefore, the demand of service tax under the 'supply of tangible goods for use service' was incorrect.
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dismissed the Revenue's appeal. It held that the transaction between the parties constituted a job work arrangement, not a 'supply of tangible goods for use service'. The respondent installed machinery at the client's factory premises to carry out production activities using their own machines. No lease rent or consideration was charged for the 'supply of tangible goods for use'. The charges collected were for the production process on a job work basis, as evident from the invoices. Therefore, the demand of service tax under the 'supply of tangible goods for use service' was incorrect.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
