Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
CESTAT held that the services rendered by the appellant in India to its foreign principals, X-Germany and X-China, constituted export of services under the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012. Applying Rule 3, the Tribunal held that the place of provision was the location of the service recipients, i.e., Germany and China, as the appellant provided services on its own account and did not qualify as an "intermediary" under Rule 2(f) during the relevant period. Supply of goods by X-Germany and X-China to Indian buyers was outside the then-prevailing scope of "intermediary services." As the Finance Act, 1994 did not extend outside India, the services were not exigible to service tax. The demand of tax, interest, and penalties was set aside and the appeal was allowed.
CESTAT held that the services rendered by the appellant in India to its foreign principals, X-Germany and X-China, constituted export of services under the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012. Applying Rule 3, the Tribunal held that the place of provision was the location of the service recipients, i.e., Germany and China, as the appellant provided services on its own account and did not qualify as an "intermediary" under Rule 2(f) during the relevant period. Supply of goods by X-Germany and X-China to Indian buyers was outside the then-prevailing scope of "intermediary services." As the Finance Act, 1994 did not extend outside India, the services were not exigible to service tax. The demand of tax, interest, and penalties was set aside and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
