<?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 (11) TMI 468 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267659</link>
    <description>Commission earned in multi-level marketing arrangements under Business Auxiliary Service required fresh adjudication where the demand had not separated taxable from non-taxable components. The CESTAT ruling noted that commission linked to a distributor&#039;s own purchases was not taxable as promotion or marketing of the client&#039;s goods, while commission linked to the sales group needed segregation and the availability of exemption notification benefit also had to be examined. Because the impugned orders had not carried out that exercise, the orders were set aside and the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication in line with the earlier precedent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2015 01:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=404876" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (11) TMI 468 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267659</link>
      <description>Commission earned in multi-level marketing arrangements under Business Auxiliary Service required fresh adjudication where the demand had not separated taxable from non-taxable components. The CESTAT ruling noted that commission linked to a distributor&#039;s own purchases was not taxable as promotion or marketing of the client&#039;s goods, while commission linked to the sales group needed segregation and the availability of exemption notification benefit also had to be examined. Because the impugned orders had not carried out that exercise, the orders were set aside and the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication in line with the earlier precedent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267659</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>