Appeal allows marketing payments as deductible business expenses under Sec.37; director pay retained; R&D deductible from certificate date under Sec.3...
Registration under s.12AB upheld; CIT(Exemptions) exceeded jurisdiction by deciding taxability instead of preliminary verification and registration di...
CESTAT held that the appellant's activities-development of APIs and pharmaceutical products, execution of tests and compilation/submission of a dossier-constitute Scientific or Technical Consultancy services rather than OIDAR services; the mode of delivery (electronic upload) was incidental and not the essence of the contract. The place of provision is the recipient's location (foreign affiliate in the USA), hence the services qualify as export of services. Consequentially, the appellant is not liable for service tax on those services and is entitled to refund of Cenvat credit under Rule 5 of the CCR. The impugned orders were set aside and the appeal allowed.
CESTAT held that the appellant's activities-development of APIs and pharmaceutical products, execution of tests and compilation/submission of a dossier-constitute Scientific or Technical Consultancy services rather than OIDAR services; the mode of delivery (electronic upload) was incidental and not the essence of the contract. The place of provision is the recipient's location (foreign affiliate in the USA), hence the services qualify as export of services. Consequentially, the appellant is not liable for service tax on those services and is entitled to refund of Cenvat credit under Rule 5 of the CCR. The impugned orders were set aside and the appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4824 
Join Channel 
