Scope of intermediary status for data hosting services: tribunal finds provider not intermediary, services exported and not taxable, limited remand on...
CENVAT credit availability after omission of Rule 12B in textiles confirmed; late addendum to SCN introducing new grounds held time-barred and invalid...
Export of Wheat Flour and related products subject to online allocation, eligibility criteria, non-transferable six-month authorisations and reporting...
Straight-line lease rental accounting change results in penalty quashed where disclosed accounts and bona fide arguable accounting interpretation exis...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
7241 to 7260 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT held that services received by the appellant from overseas entities are classifiable as IPR services and not as franchise services. Applying its earlier decision in the appellant's own case, the Tribunal ruled that the appellant is entitled to the exemption/abatement of service tax under the Notification dated 10.09.2004 available to holders of IPR. The Tribunal rejected Revenue's request to keep the matter pending merely because the earlier order had been admitted in appeal by SC, noting absence of any stay and distinguishing the West Coast Paper Mills ruling. The appeal was accordingly allowed in favour of the appellant.
CESTAT held that services received by the appellant from overseas entities are classifiable as IPR services and not as franchise services. Applying its earlier decision in the appellant's own case, the Tribunal ruled that the appellant is entitled to the exemption/abatement of service tax under the Notification dated 10.09.2004 available to holders of IPR. The Tribunal rejected Revenue's request to keep the matter pending merely because the earlier order had been admitted in appeal by SC, noting absence of any stay and distinguishing the West Coast Paper Mills ruling. The appeal was accordingly allowed in favour of the appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.