<?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>2024 (6) TMI 448 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753841</link>
    <description>In a positive list service-tax regime, the Revenue had to identify and prove the exact taxable category in the notice and on evidence; failure to classify the foreign currency payments correctly made the demand unsustainable. The Tribunal also noted that several disputed items, including goods purchases, demurrage, charter hire, port disbursements, dry docking, repair-related services, survey and inspection expenses, and services performed outside India or otherwise exempt, fell outside the tax net, and amounts already taxed could not be demanded again. Penalty on the Executive President also failed because there was no sufficient proof of day-to-day responsibility or culpable involvement for the relevant period, and the penalty exceeded the notice.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Jun 2024 17:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=756070" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (6) TMI 448 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753841</link>
      <description>In a positive list service-tax regime, the Revenue had to identify and prove the exact taxable category in the notice and on evidence; failure to classify the foreign currency payments correctly made the demand unsustainable. The Tribunal also noted that several disputed items, including goods purchases, demurrage, charter hire, port disbursements, dry docking, repair-related services, survey and inspection expenses, and services performed outside India or otherwise exempt, fell outside the tax net, and amounts already taxed could not be demanded again. Penalty on the Executive President also failed because there was no sufficient proof of day-to-day responsibility or culpable involvement for the relevant period, and the penalty exceeded the notice.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753841</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>