<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2012 (5) TMI 346 - CESTAT, Bangalore</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213492</link>
    <description>Package tour operator valuation includes pre-planned supplementary components such as train fare, darshan tickets, entry fees, hill transport and cruise charges when they are collected as part of the tour package, and abatement is applied on the gross taxable value under the applicable notification regime. A bona fide interpretative dispute on valuation, coupled with prior departmental scrutiny, does not establish wilful suppression, so the extended limitation period and penalties are not invocable. Cum-tax treatment and adjustment against mandap keeper liability were remanded for fresh consideration, while CENVAT credit was denied for want of nexus between input services and the output service.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Mar 2013 11:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=186893" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (5) TMI 346 - CESTAT, Bangalore</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213492</link>
      <description>Package tour operator valuation includes pre-planned supplementary components such as train fare, darshan tickets, entry fees, hill transport and cruise charges when they are collected as part of the tour package, and abatement is applied on the gross taxable value under the applicable notification regime. A bona fide interpretative dispute on valuation, coupled with prior departmental scrutiny, does not establish wilful suppression, so the extended limitation period and penalties are not invocable. Cum-tax treatment and adjustment against mandap keeper liability were remanded for fresh consideration, while CENVAT credit was denied for want of nexus between input services and the output service.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213492</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>