<?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 (11) TMI 1270 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351391</link>
    <description>Amounts recovered for uniforms, bonus, provident fund, overtime allowance, ESIC, insurance and similar items were held includible in the taxable value of security agency service because no contractual or billing evidence established a reimbursement structure or pure agent arrangement. The article further notes that, where the assessee was registered, collected service tax, failed to deposit it for a substantial period and did not file returns for two years, objections based on natural justice and financial hardship were rejected, and the extended period and penalties were upheld. The final result was that the appeal failed and the demand, limitation and penalties were sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Dec 2017 10:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=497484" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (11) TMI 1270 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351391</link>
      <description>Amounts recovered for uniforms, bonus, provident fund, overtime allowance, ESIC, insurance and similar items were held includible in the taxable value of security agency service because no contractual or billing evidence established a reimbursement structure or pure agent arrangement. The article further notes that, where the assessee was registered, collected service tax, failed to deposit it for a substantial period and did not file returns for two years, objections based on natural justice and financial hardship were rejected, and the extended period and penalties were upheld. The final result was that the appeal failed and the demand, limitation and penalties were sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351391</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>