<?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>2008 (8) TMI 68 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31577</link>
    <description>Commission received from decorators for procuring clients for decoration was not part of the taxable value of Mandap Keeper service, because that service covers provision of an open plot for social functions and the commission was not consideration for the service rendered to the client. The commission was therefore held excludible from service tax computation, and the matter was remanded for re-quantification of duty and penalty accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 May 2009 16:56:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=70224" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (8) TMI 68 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31577</link>
      <description>Commission received from decorators for procuring clients for decoration was not part of the taxable value of Mandap Keeper service, because that service covers provision of an open plot for social functions and the commission was not consideration for the service rendered to the client. The commission was therefore held excludible from service tax computation, and the matter was remanded for re-quantification of duty and penalty accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31577</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>