<?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>2017 (1) TMI 378 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337298</link>
    <description>Where the taxability of the distributor&#039;s commission was debatable and prior Tribunal decisions had already covered the merits, the extended period of limitation could not be invoked because the issue involved scope for doubt. The demand was therefore confined to the normal limitation period, and no penalty was warranted on that basis. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded to the Original Adjudicating Authority to recompute the demand within the normal period only, without imposing penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2017 13:41:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=454394" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (1) TMI 378 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337298</link>
      <description>Where the taxability of the distributor&#039;s commission was debatable and prior Tribunal decisions had already covered the merits, the extended period of limitation could not be invoked because the issue involved scope for doubt. The demand was therefore confined to the normal limitation period, and no penalty was warranted on that basis. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded to the Original Adjudicating Authority to recompute the demand within the normal period only, without imposing penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337298</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>