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 ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding that the taxable event (transfer of patent/IPR) occurred prior to inclusion of IPR services within the service tax net and was rendered from outside India, so no service tax liability arose. The Tribunal found no evidence that the liaison office in India rendered the services or received consideration in INR; the adjudicating authority erred in treating a one-time transfer as a continuous taxable activity merely because consideration was payable in installments. Consequently the extended limitation invocation and demand (including Rs. 1,64,789 claimed as out-of-pocket recoupment under valuation rules) were unsustainable and the demand is set aside.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding that the taxable event (transfer of patent/IPR) occurred prior to inclusion of IPR services within the service tax net and was rendered from outside India, so no service tax liability arose. The Tribunal found no evidence that the liaison office in India rendered the services or received consideration in INR; the adjudicating authority erred in treating a one-time transfer as a continuous taxable activity merely because consideration was payable in installments. Consequently the extended limitation invocation and demand (including Rs. 1,64,789 claimed as out-of-pocket recoupment under valuation rules) were unsustainable and the demand is set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.