<?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 (12) TMI 230 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335585</link>
    <description>The SC examined whether service tax applied to payments to a foreign purchaser under &quot;Business Auxiliary Service&quot;. The Tribunal determined the payment was a trade discount, not commission, and thus not liable for service tax. The foreign entity was a direct purchaser, not an intermediary agent. The appeals were allowed, setting aside tax demands, interest, and penalties, with the ruling emphasizing substance over contractual terminology.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Jun 2025 09:05:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=450581" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 230 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335585</link>
      <description>The SC examined whether service tax applied to payments to a foreign purchaser under &quot;Business Auxiliary Service&quot;. The Tribunal determined the payment was a trade discount, not commission, and thus not liable for service tax. The foreign entity was a direct purchaser, not an intermediary agent. The appeals were allowed, setting aside tax demands, interest, and penalties, with the ruling emphasizing substance over contractual terminology.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335585</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>