<?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 (12) TMI 1495 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270191</link>
    <description>Free recharge vouchers and SIM cards issued to dealers as commission were not includible in the taxable value for service tax because valuation under the then-applicable provisions was confined to the gross amount actually charged for the taxable service. Tax had already been discharged on amounts received from distributors or dealers for the SIM cards, and no amount was received for the free vouchers. A later clarification on telecommunication services could not be applied to the earlier period, and the prior decision of the same Bench on similar facts supported the exclusion. The valuation demand was therefore unsustainable, and service tax was payable only on the amount actually charged and received.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 31 Dec 2015 14:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=411284" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (12) TMI 1495 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270191</link>
      <description>Free recharge vouchers and SIM cards issued to dealers as commission were not includible in the taxable value for service tax because valuation under the then-applicable provisions was confined to the gross amount actually charged for the taxable service. Tax had already been discharged on amounts received from distributors or dealers for the SIM cards, and no amount was received for the free vouchers. A later clarification on telecommunication services could not be applied to the earlier period, and the prior decision of the same Bench on similar facts supported the exclusion. The valuation demand was therefore unsustainable, and service tax was payable only on the amount actually charged and received.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270191</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>