<?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>2016 (1) TMI 392 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270600</link>
    <description>The court upheld the decision that service tax was not applicable on sales incentives passed on to customers for promoting sales of cars on which sales tax was paid. The appeal by Revenue challenging the tax demand under Business Auxiliary Service was rejected, citing precedents and the fact that the incentives were entirely passed on to customers. Additionally, the appeal was allowed on the ground of time bar as the facts were known to the Department by a certain date.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Jan 2016 11:03:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=412650" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (1) TMI 392 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270600</link>
      <description>The court upheld the decision that service tax was not applicable on sales incentives passed on to customers for promoting sales of cars on which sales tax was paid. The appeal by Revenue challenging the tax demand under Business Auxiliary Service was rejected, citing precedents and the fact that the incentives were entirely passed on to customers. Additionally, the appeal was allowed on the ground of time bar as the facts were known to the Department by a certain date.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270600</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>