Expenses for overseas film shooting treated as services availed outside India, so no reverse charge service tax liability; cenvat reversals and penalt...
Electricity consumptionbased clandestine production estimates under the repealed Central Excise Act found insufficient; demand quashed and appeals all...
Arbitrator exceeded contractual scope by creating a non-existent clause to deduct shortfall in Minimum Guaranteed CENVAT Credit (MGCC) from invoices; the correct legal principle is that arbitrators must decide within the four corners of the contract and cannot add terms. The arbitrator wrongly treated the tax component as excluded from MGCC and failed to apply clause 14.5.2 correctly, which only denies reimbursement if documents to avail CENVAT are not produced. Because the arbitrator ventured beyond contractual terms and committed patent illegality, the arbitral award was set aside.
Arbitrator exceeded contractual scope by creating a non-existent clause to deduct shortfall in Minimum Guaranteed CENVAT Credit (MGCC) from invoices; the correct legal principle is that arbitrators must decide within the four corners of the contract and cannot add terms. The arbitrator wrongly treated the tax component as excluded from MGCC and failed to apply clause 14.5.2 correctly, which only denies reimbursement if documents to avail CENVAT are not produced. Because the arbitrator ventured beyond contractual terms and committed patent illegality, the arbitral award was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
