<?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 344 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335699</link>
    <description>Cancellation charges retained on cancellation of booth bookings were treated as compensation for inconvenience, not as consideration for Business Exhibition Services, because no booth was ultimately rented out and no service was provided against the cancelled booking. Penal amounts recovered for violation of booth size were, however, linked to the extra space actually used and were treated as taxable consideration for additional service value. On limitation, disclosure of the disputed amounts in the balance sheet and absence of material showing mala fide suppression meant the extended period could not be invoked. The demand, interest and penalty were therefore held time-barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Aug 2017 12:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=450879" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 344 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335699</link>
      <description>Cancellation charges retained on cancellation of booth bookings were treated as compensation for inconvenience, not as consideration for Business Exhibition Services, because no booth was ultimately rented out and no service was provided against the cancelled booking. Penal amounts recovered for violation of booth size were, however, linked to the extra space actually used and were treated as taxable consideration for additional service value. On limitation, disclosure of the disputed amounts in the balance sheet and absence of material showing mala fide suppression meant the extended period could not be invoked. The demand, interest and penalty were therefore held time-barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335699</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>