Refund claim dismissed as time-barred under s.142(5); non-obstante clause read restrictively, merits not decided, self-assessment payments not mere de...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
9201 to 9220 of 96365 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the service-tax demand, holding that the appellant's activity of placing and managing spare-parts inventory at customer premises does not constitute a taxable "supply of tangible goods service." The Tribunal found no material distinction from prior proceedings where VAT/CST was discharged on a deemed-sale basis and invoices were raised accordingly; in such circumstances, payment of VAT/CST precludes liability for service tax. Although the appellant failed to notify the Division Bench of an identical earlier decision, the Revenue produced no new facts to distinguish the matters. On the majority view, no service tax is payable and the appeal is allowed.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the service-tax demand, holding that the appellant's activity of placing and managing spare-parts inventory at customer premises does not constitute a taxable "supply of tangible goods service." The Tribunal found no material distinction from prior proceedings where VAT/CST was discharged on a deemed-sale basis and invoices were raised accordingly; in such circumstances, payment of VAT/CST precludes liability for service tax. Although the appellant failed to notify the Division Bench of an identical earlier decision, the Revenue produced no new facts to distinguish the matters. On the majority view, no service tax is payable and the appeal is allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
