<?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 (7) TMI 1679 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290220</link>
    <description>Proportionate reversal of common Cenvat credit was treated as substantial compliance with the non-availment condition for abatement under Notification No. 1/2006-ST, so the abatement claim was accepted. Taxability under restaurant service depended on the prescribed conditions being met: an open-air, non-air-conditioned restaurant and mini bar activity were found outside the levy. Discounts actually passed on to customers could not be added back to value, foreign travel-agent commission was covered by the stated exemption, and the elephant safari or pick-up arrangement did not amount to tour operator service. In the absence of suppression or intent to evade, the extended limitation period and penalty were also not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Sep 2020 10:43:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=622232" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (7) TMI 1679 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290220</link>
      <description>Proportionate reversal of common Cenvat credit was treated as substantial compliance with the non-availment condition for abatement under Notification No. 1/2006-ST, so the abatement claim was accepted. Taxability under restaurant service depended on the prescribed conditions being met: an open-air, non-air-conditioned restaurant and mini bar activity were found outside the levy. Discounts actually passed on to customers could not be added back to value, foreign travel-agent commission was covered by the stated exemption, and the elephant safari or pick-up arrangement did not amount to tour operator service. In the absence of suppression or intent to evade, the extended limitation period and penalty were also not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290220</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>