<?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 1574 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351695</link>
    <description>Reimbursable expenses collected for endorsement, documentation and similar outgoings were held not to form part of the taxable value for Custom House Agent services, and the corresponding demand was set aside. Incentive received from the shipping liner was treated as a commission-like receipt, but on the facts it was held not taxable under Business Auxiliary Services, so that demand was also set aside. Simultaneous penalties under sections 76 and 78 were found unwarranted in the absence of evidence of wilful suppression with intent to evade tax, and both penalties were annulled. The only remaining matter was limited verification of amounts already paid, which was remitted for reconsideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Nov 2017 07:58:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=498101" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (11) TMI 1574 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351695</link>
      <description>Reimbursable expenses collected for endorsement, documentation and similar outgoings were held not to form part of the taxable value for Custom House Agent services, and the corresponding demand was set aside. Incentive received from the shipping liner was treated as a commission-like receipt, but on the facts it was held not taxable under Business Auxiliary Services, so that demand was also set aside. Simultaneous penalties under sections 76 and 78 were found unwarranted in the absence of evidence of wilful suppression with intent to evade tax, and both penalties were annulled. The only remaining matter was limited verification of amounts already paid, which was remitted for reconsideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351695</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>