<?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 1497 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348740</link>
    <description>A web-portal activity of identifying customers, receiving sale proceeds on behalf of merchants, and remitting the net amount after deducting consideration was treated as commission agent service for exemption under Notification No. 13/2003. The tribunal accepted that the appellant&#039;s activity fell within the notified description and that its bona fide understanding supported the claim, so the service tax demand for 1.7.2003 to 8.7.2004 was set aside. Penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 was also deleted because tax with interest had been paid before the show cause notice and the dispute was interpretational rather than contumacious.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Feb 2018 12:56:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=490881" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (9) TMI 1497 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348740</link>
      <description>A web-portal activity of identifying customers, receiving sale proceeds on behalf of merchants, and remitting the net amount after deducting consideration was treated as commission agent service for exemption under Notification No. 13/2003. The tribunal accepted that the appellant&#039;s activity fell within the notified description and that its bona fide understanding supported the claim, so the service tax demand for 1.7.2003 to 8.7.2004 was set aside. Penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 was also deleted because tax with interest had been paid before the show cause notice and the dispute was interpretational rather than contumacious.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348740</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>