<?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>2018 (3) TMI 772 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357069</link>
    <description>Amounts earned from pre-booking cargo space with airlines or shipping lines were treated as outside Business Auxiliary Service because the operator procured space on its own account, assumed the risk of non-use, and then allotted that space to customers. The arrangement was characterised as principal-to-principal rather than an agency service. The consideration received was viewed as freight-related payment arising from purchase and sale of space, not as consideration for promoting or marketing the carrier&#039;s services. On that basis, the service tax demand was found unsustainable and the activity was held not to fall within the Business Auxiliary Service definition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Mar 2018 08:00:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=513107" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (3) TMI 772 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357069</link>
      <description>Amounts earned from pre-booking cargo space with airlines or shipping lines were treated as outside Business Auxiliary Service because the operator procured space on its own account, assumed the risk of non-use, and then allotted that space to customers. The arrangement was characterised as principal-to-principal rather than an agency service. The consideration received was viewed as freight-related payment arising from purchase and sale of space, not as consideration for promoting or marketing the carrier&#039;s services. On that basis, the service tax demand was found unsustainable and the activity was held not to fall within the Business Auxiliary Service definition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357069</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>