<?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 (11) TMI 1517 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371174</link>
    <description>A refundable Field Care Plan Incentive Deposit collected at the time of appointing Sales Officers was examined for service tax liability under business support or business promotion service. The arrangement was linked to the recruitment scheme and subject to stipulated refund conditions, but the facts did not show any independent service rendered by the appellant to promote the business of the Sales Officers. The deposit was treated as part of the model for engaging persons to sell insurance policies through the appellant&#039;s business structure, not as consideration for a taxable service. On that basis, the deposit was held not taxable as business support service, and the demand and penalty were unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Apr 2019 11:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=544717" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (11) TMI 1517 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371174</link>
      <description>A refundable Field Care Plan Incentive Deposit collected at the time of appointing Sales Officers was examined for service tax liability under business support or business promotion service. The arrangement was linked to the recruitment scheme and subject to stipulated refund conditions, but the facts did not show any independent service rendered by the appellant to promote the business of the Sales Officers. The deposit was treated as part of the model for engaging persons to sell insurance policies through the appellant&#039;s business structure, not as consideration for a taxable service. On that basis, the deposit was held not taxable as business support service, and the demand and penalty were unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371174</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>