<?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>2009 (1) TMI 141 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33554</link>
    <description>In a stay application concerning service tax paid on Business Auxiliary Service receipts, the Tribunal declined to suspend the Commissioner (Appeals) order directing verification of the actual incentive retained after deductions passed on to buyers. The Tribunal accepted that the reduced incentive amounts were capable of verification and saw no basis for interim interference with the direction to the adjudicating authority to verify the receipts and sanction refund if due. Revenue reliance on earlier Tribunal authority and a Board circular on taxability of gross receipts did not justify a stay. The Commissioner (Appeals) order was left operative.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=72184" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (1) TMI 141 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33554</link>
      <description>In a stay application concerning service tax paid on Business Auxiliary Service receipts, the Tribunal declined to suspend the Commissioner (Appeals) order directing verification of the actual incentive retained after deductions passed on to buyers. The Tribunal accepted that the reduced incentive amounts were capable of verification and saw no basis for interim interference with the direction to the adjudicating authority to verify the receipts and sanction refund if due. Revenue reliance on earlier Tribunal authority and a Board circular on taxability of gross receipts did not justify a stay. The Commissioner (Appeals) order was left operative.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33554</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>