<?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 (9) TMI 1123 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386355</link>
    <description>Service tax was held not leviable on a corporate guarantee furnished for holding companies or associate enterprises where the record showed no consideration received by the assessee; the demand and penalty were set aside. The Offshore Upfront Fee paid to foreign bankers on a buyer credit facility was treated as interest, not an independent fee for taxable services, because the evidence and bank communication showed it formed part of the RBI-guided credit arrangement. As interest on a loan or buyer credit transaction falls outside the taxable value, the demand on this component also failed and the dropping of demand was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Sep 2019 19:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=588882" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (9) TMI 1123 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386355</link>
      <description>Service tax was held not leviable on a corporate guarantee furnished for holding companies or associate enterprises where the record showed no consideration received by the assessee; the demand and penalty were set aside. The Offshore Upfront Fee paid to foreign bankers on a buyer credit facility was treated as interest, not an independent fee for taxable services, because the evidence and bank communication showed it formed part of the RBI-guided credit arrangement. As interest on a loan or buyer credit transaction falls outside the taxable value, the demand on this component also failed and the dropping of demand was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386355</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>