<?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>2015 (6) TMI 585 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260660</link>
    <description>In a multi-level marketing arrangement, resale by distributors on their own account and commission linked only to their own purchase volume were treated as not constituting consideration for promoting or marketing the supplier&#039;s goods, so those amounts were not taxable as Business Auxiliary Service. Commission linked to the performance of a sponsored sales group was treated as promotion of the supplier&#039;s goods and taxable in principle. The extended period of limitation was held not invocable because non-registration, non-filing, or non-declaration alone did not establish wilful suppression with intent to evade tax, especially amid divergent departmental views. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication, including segregation of taxable and non-taxable commission and examination of exemption eligibility.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2026 15:50:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=387923" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (6) TMI 585 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260660</link>
      <description>In a multi-level marketing arrangement, resale by distributors on their own account and commission linked only to their own purchase volume were treated as not constituting consideration for promoting or marketing the supplier&#039;s goods, so those amounts were not taxable as Business Auxiliary Service. Commission linked to the performance of a sponsored sales group was treated as promotion of the supplier&#039;s goods and taxable in principle. The extended period of limitation was held not invocable because non-registration, non-filing, or non-declaration alone did not establish wilful suppression with intent to evade tax, especially amid divergent departmental views. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication, including segregation of taxable and non-taxable commission and examination of exemption eligibility.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260660</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>