<?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 (10) TMI 1346 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760747</link>
    <description>Export of own goods through a group company under an EPCG arrangement was not treated as taxable business support service because the arrangement did not involve outsourcing of business functions; the demand was therefore dropped. CENVAT credit on club membership renewal fees was allowed where the memberships were used for business meetings and sales promotion, so the club-membership exclusion did not apply. Suo motu re-credit in the CENVAT account was found time-barred on the facts, as the later demand related to amounts paid twice or in excess and had not been raised in audit. Penalty on the royalty-related demand was also not leviable because tax and interest had already been paid before the show cause notice.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Oct 2024 10:33:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=775743" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (10) TMI 1346 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760747</link>
      <description>Export of own goods through a group company under an EPCG arrangement was not treated as taxable business support service because the arrangement did not involve outsourcing of business functions; the demand was therefore dropped. CENVAT credit on club membership renewal fees was allowed where the memberships were used for business meetings and sales promotion, so the club-membership exclusion did not apply. Suo motu re-credit in the CENVAT account was found time-barred on the facts, as the later demand related to amounts paid twice or in excess and had not been raised in audit. Penalty on the royalty-related demand was also not leviable because tax and interest had already been paid before the show cause notice.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760747</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>