<?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 (6) TMI 590 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248686</link>
    <description>In a service tax valuation dispute over prepaid recharge vouchers, the tribunal examined whether the discount retained by distributors could be excluded from assessable value and whether full waiver of pre-deposit was justified. It noted that the demand arose after the amended Section 67 and the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006, and that the vouchers were sold at MRP while the service was ultimately rendered to the consumer, with the distributor acting only as an intermediary. On a prima facie view, the distributor-level discount formed part of the consideration for the taxable service rather than an excludible trade discount. Full waiver was declined because no strong case or financial hardship was shown, and a 25% pre-deposit was directed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2014 15:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=357835" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (6) TMI 590 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248686</link>
      <description>In a service tax valuation dispute over prepaid recharge vouchers, the tribunal examined whether the discount retained by distributors could be excluded from assessable value and whether full waiver of pre-deposit was justified. It noted that the demand arose after the amended Section 67 and the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006, and that the vouchers were sold at MRP while the service was ultimately rendered to the consumer, with the distributor acting only as an intermediary. On a prima facie view, the distributor-level discount formed part of the consideration for the taxable service rather than an excludible trade discount. Full waiver was declined because no strong case or financial hardship was shown, and a 25% pre-deposit was directed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248686</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>