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 ...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
381 to 400 of 96046 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 ruled that the leasing of "Scaffolding items" by the Appellant, on which VAT had been paid as a deemed sale within the meaning of Article 366(29A)(d) of the Constitution of India, did not attract service tax liability. The Tribunal held that there was a transfer of the right to use, possession, and effective control over the scaffolding items in favor of the lessees. Consequently, the transaction qualified as a deemed sale liable for VAT, and not a service subject to service tax. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal.
The CESTAT ruled that the leasing of "Scaffolding items" by the Appellant, on which VAT had been paid as a deemed sale within the meaning of Article 366(29A)(d) of the Constitution of India, did not attract service tax liability. The Tribunal held that there was a transfer of the right to use, possession, and effective control over the scaffolding items in favor of the lessees. Consequently, the transaction qualified as a deemed sale liable for VAT, and not a service subject to service tax. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
