Karnataka HC Notices Sri Lankan Judge's Rights Plea
07 Mar 2026
Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
VIBHU BAKHRU, AMIT MAHAJAN
Principal Commissioner, Central Excise And Cgst-delhi South – Appellant
Versus
Blackberry India Private Limited – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT
Vibhu Bakhru, J.
1. The Revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 impugning the final order1[Final Oder No.ST/A/51150/2022- in Service Tax Appeal No. 50281/2022 captioned Blackberry India Private Limited v. Commissioner of Central Tax/Excise], dated 07.12.2022 (hereafter `the impugned order') passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter `the CESTAT').
2. In terms of the impugned order, the learned CESTAT had allowed the respondent's appeal against an Order-in-Appeal dated 18.08.2021 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting the respondent's appeal against an Order-in-Original dated 31.08.2020 passed by the Adjudicating Authority.
3. By the said Order-in-Original dated 31.08.2020, the Adjudicating Authority had rejected the respondent's claim for refund of Rs.8,55,34,345/- on
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of intermediary services and the scope of export of services under the relevant rules.
The main legal point established is that the definition of 'intermediary' under the IGST Act does not include a person who provides services on his own account, and the determination of the place of ....
The court emphasized that for services to qualify as 'export of services', authorities must accurately ascertain the petitioner's role as an intermediary, citing inadequate findings in previous rulin....
The Supreme Court upheld that services provided outside India, when paid in convertible foreign exchange, do not attract service tax, confirming the validity of the CESTAT's decisions on tax liabilit....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner's services did not qualify as 'Intermediary Services' and that the place of supply of services was not in India as per the rele....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the characterization of services as intermediary services under the IGST Act requires a careful analysis of the nature of the services provide....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article