Scheme of sub-sections (8), (10) and (12) of Section 132 makes it amply clear that there is a statutory obligation on the Revenue to communicate to the person concerned not merely the Commissioner’s approval but the recorded reasons on which the same has been obtained and that such communication must be made as expeditiously as possible
Income arising on account of offshore services and offshore supply of equipments would not be taxable. If the assessee is not liable to tax in view of the Article 8 (sic) of DTAA between India and Japan, then, irrespective of the amendment to section 9(1) of the Act, the assessee would not be liable to tax.
We notice that in this respect the provision is silent. We may therefore record that the interpretation adopted by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment would ordinarily give rise to a question of law particularly when it is pointed out that there is no previous decision of any High Court on the subject However, the issue has been made sufficiently clear by the CBDT Circular No.17/2008 dated 26-11-2008. In the said circular, this very issue has been examined and clarified in the following manner:—
The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is not a remand order and he has clearly held that the refund was available in respect of all services except ‘Air Travel Agent service’. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the submission that the Commissioner’s (Appeals) order is a remand order. In view of the above, the grounds raised by the department challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) are not valid and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MIL India Ltd. (supra) does not applicable to the facts of the present case.
In this case appellant is engaged in the manufacture of MG craft paper and they import waste paper and use the same in the manufacture of final product. The services received are in relation to the importation of waste paper such as container charges, handling charges incurred in the port etc.
