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
Right to Promotion is Legitimate Expectation; Marriage-Based Transfer Can't Defeat It: Himachal Pradesh High Court
12 Mar 2026
Section 4 Official Secrets Act Presumption and Prima Facie Evidence Bar Bail in Espionage Case: Punjab & Haryana HC
14 Mar 2026
Centre Revokes Wangchuk's NSA Detention Amid SC Challenge
14 Mar 2026
No Interference Allowed in Religious Prayers on Private Premises: Allahabad HC Cites Maranatha Precedent
14 Mar 2026
No Proof of Absolute Ownership by Mizo Chiefs Bars Fundamental Rights Claim Under Article 31: Supreme Court
14 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Li And Fung India Pvt Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Gurgaon I – Respondent
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. I Service Tax Appeal No. 60064 of 2018 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 110-111/ST/2017 dated 29.09.2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) CGST, Gurugram]
M/s Li and Fung India Pvt. Ltd. ……Appellant Tower B SP Infocity 243, Udyog Vihar, Phase-I Gurgaon, Haryana-122016 VERSUS Commissioner of Central Goods and ……Respondent Service Tax, Gurgaon-I Plot No.36-37, Sector-32, Gurugram, Haryana-122001 WITH Service Tax Appeal No. 60074 of 2018 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 110-111/ST/2017 dated 29.09.2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) CGST, Gurugram]
M/s Li and Fung India Pvt. Ltd. ……Appellant Tower B SP Infocity 243, Udyog Vihar, Phase-I Gurgaon, Haryana-122016 VERSUS Commissioner of Central Goods and ……Respondent Service Tax, Gurgaon-I Plot No.36-37, Sector-32, Gurugram, Haryana-122001 Service Tax Appeal No.
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 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 the interpretation of the definition of intermediary services and the scope of export of services under the relevant rules.
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