Prohibited importation of cosmetics without prior regulatory registration attracts seizure and confiscation; warehousing or re export claims do not cu...
Provisional release on security permitted where cash deposit plus bond secures differential duty; classification and treaty benefits referred for deci...
Customs Valuation Rule Sequence must be followed; single-comparator re-determination and penalties set aside without comparability or proof of mis-dec...
Separately Identifiable Services: transportation found to be the essential character, so Cargo Handling classification and extended limitation rejecte...
Whether the appellant qualifies as an intermediary under the...
Scope of intermediary status for data hosting services: tribunal finds provider not intermediary, services exported and not taxable, limited remand on interest
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Whether the appellant qualifies as an intermediary under the Place of Provision of Service Rules was examined: the tribunal found the agreement established an independent contractor relationship, the appellant provided data hosting as a principal activity and did not arrange or facilitate services between third-party recipients, so it is not an intermediary and Rule 9 inapplicable; consequently, place of provision follows the recipient location and the services are exported and outside service tax levy. Invocation of the extended period was rejected as exceptions did not apply given the appellants bona fide belief in export treatment. A limited remand was ordered to verify interest paid on prior marketing-service tax payments.
Whether the appellant qualifies as an intermediary under the Place of Provision of Service Rules was examined: the tribunal found the agreement established an independent contractor relationship, the appellant provided data hosting as a principal activity and did not arrange or facilitate services between third-party recipients, so it is not an intermediary and Rule 9 inapplicable; consequently, place of provision follows the recipient location and the services are exported and outside service tax levy. Invocation of the extended period was rejected as exceptions did not apply given the appellants bona fide belief in export treatment. A limited remand was ordered to verify interest paid on prior marketing-service tax payments.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
