<?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>2014 (4) TMI 996 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247027</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the service tax demand on packaging services but ruled in favor of the appellant, a Clear &amp;amp; Forwarding Agent, regarding the assessable value of C&amp;amp;F Agent services. The appellant&#039;s argument that expenses reimbursed by principals should not be included in the assessable value was accepted due to genuine doubt based on conflicting judgments. The Tribunal held that reimbursement expenses are includible unless there is a legal obligation for the service recipient to pay. The longer period for demand and penalty imposition was deemed unjustified, resulting in the penalty being set aside, and the duty demand upheld for the normal limitation period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Jul 2015 12:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=354357" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (4) TMI 996 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247027</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the service tax demand on packaging services but ruled in favor of the appellant, a Clear &amp;amp; Forwarding Agent, regarding the assessable value of C&amp;amp;F Agent services. The appellant&#039;s argument that expenses reimbursed by principals should not be included in the assessable value was accepted due to genuine doubt based on conflicting judgments. The Tribunal held that reimbursement expenses are includible unless there is a legal obligation for the service recipient to pay. The longer period for demand and penalty imposition was deemed unjustified, resulting in the penalty being set aside, and the duty demand upheld for the normal limitation period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247027</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>