The activity carried out by the respondent-assessee was of transmitting customized electronic data to its client is factually so found by two authorities under the Act. This finding of fact arrived at by the authorities under the Act is not perverse and nor arbitrary. So far as deduction under Section 80HHE of the Act for data entry is concerned, the same is covered by CBDT notification dated 26.09.2000 wherein the job of data entry has been notified as being computer software service.
Since the impugned order of the CESTAT has been passed almost after six months from the date of concluding the hearing of the appeal and the Tribunal has not specifically dealt with some of the aforesaid vital issues in spite of the directions given to that effect by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, counsel for the parties state that the impugned order be set aside and the matter be restored to the file of the CESTAT for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.
The works contract/job work may not separately provide for sale of the goods but may be a composite amount for doing the work. Therefore, the supply value of goods has to be understood in the context of the work contract/job work contract to determine whether it included in it also the sale of goods.
Issue for consideration before the Tribunal on merits would be whether the word roads would include within it runways at airports. Prima facie, it appears to us that runways at the airports are species of the genus road Therefore, the runways should also normally receive the same treatment as road. for service tax purpose.
Court in Writ Petition No.866 of 2010 filed by the assessee, held by order dated 29th April 2010 that the ruling of Authority for Advance Ruling in the respondent-assessec’s case would not be over-ruled by subsequent decision of the Authority for Advance Ruling in the case of another assessee.
Section 127 H of the Customs Act, 1962, prior to its amendment by Act No.22 of 2007, empowered the Settlement Commission to grant immunity, inter alia, either wholly or in part of any part of the interest. With effect from 1 June 2007 an amended provision was brought into force by which the Settlement Commission cannot any longer grant a waiver or immunity from the liability to pay interest.
CLB has rendered a finding that the application for amendment was allowed for determination of the issues between the parties and for the purpose of framing issues for avoiding multiplicity of litigations.
The Board ought to have considered the date of filing of the Petition, as well as the admissions so given by the contesting Respondents, before rejecting the Company Petition in such a fashion on the ground of maintainability.
The appellant may have a very good case on merits and would possibly be able to establish in an appropriate proceeding that the respondent have acted in a fraudulent manner and defrauded him to Rs. 2 crore. However, in proceedings for winding up the company, the Court cannot adjudicate upon a bona fide disputed debt. It is well settled principle of company law that wherever there is a bona fide disputed debt, the petition for winding up of a company is not appropriate remedy to enforce the debt. In the circumstances, no fault is found with the order of the Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal is to be dismissed.
We find that respondent-assessee is receiving royalty and fees for technical services rendered in India. In terms of Article 12 of DTAA, royalty and fees for technical services received in India by a person resident outside India are not liable to tax in India in excess of 10% of the gross amount received. On examination of the DTAA, we find that in terms of Article 2(3) thereof the trade tax paid in Germany is one of the taxes to which DTAA applies.
