<?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>2023 (6) TMI 555 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438981</link>
    <description>Service tax was not payable on reimbursements for overseas and inland training of insurance agents because the training was statutorily mandated, intended to meet regulatory qualification requirements, and did not constitute consideration for insurance auxiliary services. The 4% debit adjustment from commission payable to agents was also excluded from taxable value because it operated as a contractual discount, not additional consideration for the taxable service. The valuation under section 67 applied only to the gross amount charged for the service actually rendered, and reverse-charge treatment did not alter the tax base. The service tax demands on both items were therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Jun 2023 09:28:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=716465" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (6) TMI 555 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438981</link>
      <description>Service tax was not payable on reimbursements for overseas and inland training of insurance agents because the training was statutorily mandated, intended to meet regulatory qualification requirements, and did not constitute consideration for insurance auxiliary services. The 4% debit adjustment from commission payable to agents was also excluded from taxable value because it operated as a contractual discount, not additional consideration for the taxable service. The valuation under section 67 applied only to the gross amount charged for the service actually rendered, and reverse-charge treatment did not alter the tax base. The service tax demands on both items were therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438981</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>