Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
CESTAT allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned order denying refund of unutilized CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal held that the services rendered by the appellant to an overseas recipient do not qualify as "intermediary services" under Rule 2(f) of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012, as there is no involvement of three parties, no distinct main and ancillary supplies, and no principal-agent relationship. Applying Rule 3 of the POPS Rules and Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, CESTAT held that the services are exports, and therefore eligible for refund. The original orders sanctioning the refund were restored, and the Revenue's denial was declared unsustainable in law.
CESTAT allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned order denying refund of unutilized CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal held that the services rendered by the appellant to an overseas recipient do not qualify as "intermediary services" under Rule 2(f) of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012, as there is no involvement of three parties, no distinct main and ancillary supplies, and no principal-agent relationship. Applying Rule 3 of the POPS Rules and Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, CESTAT held that the services are exports, and therefore eligible for refund. The original orders sanctioning the refund were restored, and the Revenue's denial was declared unsustainable in law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.