<?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>2019 (8) TMI 212 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384023</link>
    <description>Reimbursable expenses received on actual basis were held outside the taxable value of clearing and forwarding agent service, because section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 taxes only the gross amount charged as consideration for the taxable service and not separate client reimbursements incurred on behalf of the client. The valuation principle was applied to exclude amounts that were independently identifiable as actual expenses. The remaining service tax disputes, including business auxiliary service and alleged franchisee liability, were remanded for fresh adjudication because the record did not fully address those heads and the factual quantification required verification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Aug 2019 11:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=582399" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (8) TMI 212 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384023</link>
      <description>Reimbursable expenses received on actual basis were held outside the taxable value of clearing and forwarding agent service, because section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 taxes only the gross amount charged as consideration for the taxable service and not separate client reimbursements incurred on behalf of the client. The valuation principle was applied to exclude amounts that were independently identifiable as actual expenses. The remaining service tax disputes, including business auxiliary service and alleged franchisee liability, were remanded for fresh adjudication because the record did not fully address those heads and the factual quantification required verification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384023</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>