<?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 (9) TMI 625 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347868</link>
    <description>Passenger service fee and airport taxes collected with air tickets were treated as amounts outside the taxable value of air passenger transport service. The Tribunal noted that earlier decisions had already held these charges not to form part of the assessable value, and that passenger service fee is a levy connected with airport services rather than consideration for the airline&#039;s taxable service. It also observed that including the same amounts in the airline&#039;s value would amount to double taxation. Additional objections raised by the Revenue could not be introduced for the first time at the appellate stage. The impugned order was therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Feb 2018 12:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=489079" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (9) TMI 625 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347868</link>
      <description>Passenger service fee and airport taxes collected with air tickets were treated as amounts outside the taxable value of air passenger transport service. The Tribunal noted that earlier decisions had already held these charges not to form part of the assessable value, and that passenger service fee is a levy connected with airport services rather than consideration for the airline&#039;s taxable service. It also observed that including the same amounts in the airline&#039;s value would amount to double taxation. Additional objections raised by the Revenue could not be introduced for the first time at the appellate stage. The impugned order was therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347868</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>