Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“Consideration out of surrender of tenancy right on account of immovable property cannot be considered as service as per definition under Section 65-B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994 and no service tax is payable.”
The appellant was not registered with Gujarat Pollution Control Board for processing goods like Lead Acid Batteries and so they were clearing these goods to their buyers who had license from Pollution Control Board to process old/used Lead Acid Batteries for extraction of lead scrap.
“Mere entries in income tax returns or Form 26AS cannot, by themselves, establish liability under the Finance Act, 1994, unless corroborated by evidence demonstrating rendition of taxable service.”
A settlement of dispute is clearly not an agreement to tolerate any act or situation. It is beyond the scope of Section 66-E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994 and thus not a ‘declared service’.
“SKY Lark Education Welfare Society is imparting education to students of Swami Vivekanand Subharti University, enrolled under the distant learning programme, as per its curriculum and it is duly recognized under the laws of the Uttar Pradesh Government/UGC.”
“If the transaction value (FOB value) is so high, that the drawback due on the goods exceeds the market value of the goods, then, as per section 76(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, no drawback shall be allowed.”
The Adjudication Authority stated that the appellant’s activity of receiving income from transferring temporarily or permitting the use of the right vested in the film produced by them to their clients fell under the definition of copyright service under Section 65(105)(zzzt) of the Finance Act, 1994.
Summons and letters were issued to the appellant demanding service tax for the period from 01-07-2012 to 16-02-2014. Furthermore, a show cause notice demanding service tax of Rs. 2,07,29,576 along with interest for services during the afore-stated period was also issued.
“At the time of executing the Concession Agreements with developers, DMRC had collected “upfront fee” as a price for obtaining the respective Concession Agreements.”
“Adjudicating authority has travelled beyond the classification proposed in the show-cause notice by classifying the product under a classification which was neither claimed by the appellant nor was proposed in the said notice.”
For getting the films exhibited in their theatre, the owner of the said Multiplexes/theatres enter into agreements with the film distributors/producers. The purpose of the agreement and the intention of the parties is for screening of the film in the theatre, which cannot be treated as “Renting of Immovable Property Service”.
“Mere act of purchasing gold without bill is highly insufficient to confirm the grave allegations of conspiring the act of smuggling of gold. Presumptions and assumptions can never be the basis for imposition of penalty”
by Harshdeep Khurana*, Rachit Jain** and Aishwarya Vardhan***
“The importer has an obligation to self-assess duty but has no obligation under law to anticipate what view regarding classification of goods may be taken by the proper officer or may be taken by DRI or some other investigating agency at any time in future and file Bills of Entry conforming to such anticipated views of the proper officer or DRI or some other investigating agency.”
The assessee-appellant contended that they acted on principal-to-principal with both the customers (shipper) and the shipping line/airline. A freight forwarder may act as principal and raise invoice to the exporter on his own account, providing transportation of goods and is not acting as “intermediary”.
‘Namkeen’ has not been defined either contextually in the notification or as a separate nomenclature in the tariff under Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Therefore, the Tribunal opined that the adjudicating authority had erred in concluding that the impugned goods were not ‘namkeen’.
All the activities rendered by the appellant are undertaken during hosting the cricket matches alone and if there were no cricket matches played, then all these services become irrelevant.
Kopiko contained flavour coffee to the extent of 1.57 %, whereas the majority ingredients were refined sugar 33.06%, liquid glucose 41.41%, other ingredients constitute to 11.81% and water at the rate of 12.5%.
In absence of any suppression or mis-declaration of the facts, larger period of limitation could not be invoked.