https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766348 CESTAT Mumbai held that the first appellate authority failed to properly address the dispute regarding CENVAT credit refund for inputs used in pharmaceutical development under foreign agreement. The authority incorrectly applied rule 9 instead of rule 4 of Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012, addressing taxability issues not raised in the show cause notice. The tribunal found the authority's reasoning on intellectual property rights creation in India flawed, noting unregistered rights cannot be deemed to exist in Indian territory. The order was set aside and matter remanded for proper adjudication according to applicable rules and judicial pronouncements. en-us Wed, 19 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Feb 2025 08:05:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766348 CESTAT Mumbai held that the first appellate authority failed to properly address the dispute regarding CENVAT credit refund for inputs used in pharmaceutical development under foreign agreement. The authority incorrectly applied rule 9 instead of rule 4 of Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012, addressing taxability issues not raised in the show cause notice. The tribunal found the authority's reasoning on intellectual property rights creation in India flawed, noting unregistered rights cannot be deemed to exist in Indian territory. The order was set aside and matter remanded for proper adjudication according to applicable rules and judicial pronouncements. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 19 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766348