<?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 (3) TMI 140 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272328</link>
    <description>Reverse charge service tax on reinsurance-related brokerage was not payable where the recipients were not licensed insurance agents within the statutory definition, and the relevant overseas commission period predated the 18.04.2006 liability trigger; that component was therefore unsustainable. Reconciliation differences for 2002-03 were also held time-barred because the mismatch emerged from post-finalisation reconciliation, was disclosed by the assessee, and there was no positive evidence of suppression or wilful misstatement to justify the extended limitation period under Section 73. Penalty on the CENVAT credit component for electricity and water charges could not survive where the amount and interest had already been paid before the show cause notice, neutralising penal consequences.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Mar 2016 15:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=419073" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (3) TMI 140 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272328</link>
      <description>Reverse charge service tax on reinsurance-related brokerage was not payable where the recipients were not licensed insurance agents within the statutory definition, and the relevant overseas commission period predated the 18.04.2006 liability trigger; that component was therefore unsustainable. Reconciliation differences for 2002-03 were also held time-barred because the mismatch emerged from post-finalisation reconciliation, was disclosed by the assessee, and there was no positive evidence of suppression or wilful misstatement to justify the extended limitation period under Section 73. Penalty on the CENVAT credit component for electricity and water charges could not survive where the amount and interest had already been paid before the show cause notice, neutralising penal consequences.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272328</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>