The High Court followed its earlier ruling that interconnect service charges are not taxable as royalty. The Revenues appeal was dismissed due to lack of merit and binding precedent.
The Court set aside Section 148 notices after finding no tangible evidence supporting the existence of a Permanent Establishment. The ruling highlights the need for concrete material in reassessment.
The Tribunal rejected the refund claim after finding that export proceeds exceeded the declared FOB value. It held that such excess creates a presumption of duty being passed on, barring refund.
Manoj Kumar Gupta Vs Commissioner (CESTAT Allahabad) The appeal before the Tribunal arose from an Order-in-Appeal upholding a demand of ₹1,95,356 towards Service Tax for the financial year 2015–16, along with interest and penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant was registered for providing “Business Auxiliary Services.” Based on […]
The Tribunal ruled that payments made during investigation become duty once appropriated in adjudication. It rejected the argument that such payments remain deposits under protest. The decision reinforces that refund claims for such amounts are subject to limitation.
The Court permitted the taxpayer to obtain a stay by following the procedure under Section 112 and relevant CBIC circulars. It emphasized that compliance with pre-deposit and undertaking conditions is mandatory. The decision highlights the role of procedural compliance in securing relief.
The Tribunal confirmed service tax liability after finding that exemption conditions were not satisfied. It held that the burden of proof lies on the assessee to establish eligibility. The ruling emphasizes strict interpretation of exemption notifications.
The Tribunal found that the department did not establish key elements such as origin and movement of goods. It held that failure to discharge burden of proof invalidates penalties.
The Tribunal held that relationship alone is insufficient to reject transaction value without proof of price influence. It ruled that absence of such evidence invalidates demand and penalties.
he Court declined to examine merits as the petitioner did not file a reply to the impugned communication. It directed submission of response and continuation of proceedings.
