<?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 1576 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351697</link>
    <description>A CESTAT Member noted that free-of-cost office space, infrastructure, staff welfare facilities and reimbursed seat-related charges could constitute non-monetary consideration with a direct nexus to the taxable service, making them prima facie includible in service tax valuation and justifying only a partial pre-deposit. The other Member accepted the appellant&#039;s case for full waiver, treating the disputed amounts as prima facie excludible from taxable value and holding that the entire pre-deposit should be waived pending appeal. Because the Members differed on the waiver issue, the matter was referred to the President for consideration by a third Member. No final majority view on waiver was reached.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Nov 2017 07:58:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=498103" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (11) TMI 1576 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351697</link>
      <description>A CESTAT Member noted that free-of-cost office space, infrastructure, staff welfare facilities and reimbursed seat-related charges could constitute non-monetary consideration with a direct nexus to the taxable service, making them prima facie includible in service tax valuation and justifying only a partial pre-deposit. The other Member accepted the appellant&#039;s case for full waiver, treating the disputed amounts as prima facie excludible from taxable value and holding that the entire pre-deposit should be waived pending appeal. Because the Members differed on the waiver issue, the matter was referred to the President for consideration by a third Member. No final majority view on waiver was reached.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351697</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>