<?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 (11) TMI 57 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761071</link>
    <description>CESTAT New Delhi ruled that service tax is not leviable on CRS incentives received by the appellant, following the precedent in Kafila Hospitality Travels case which held that mere software selection does not constitute promotional activity. However, the tribunal held that outbound tour services including planning, scheduling, organizing tours and accommodation arrangements are taxable under service tax provisions. The appellant&#039;s claim for export service exemption was rejected as payment was not received in foreign exchange. The extended limitation period was validly invoked due to tax evasion discovered through departmental inquiry. Penalties under sections 76, 77, and 78 were upheld. Matter remanded to adjudicating authority for service tax computation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Nov 2024 07:36:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=776443" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (11) TMI 57 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761071</link>
      <description>CESTAT New Delhi ruled that service tax is not leviable on CRS incentives received by the appellant, following the precedent in Kafila Hospitality Travels case which held that mere software selection does not constitute promotional activity. However, the tribunal held that outbound tour services including planning, scheduling, organizing tours and accommodation arrangements are taxable under service tax provisions. The appellant&#039;s claim for export service exemption was rejected as payment was not received in foreign exchange. The extended limitation period was validly invoked due to tax evasion discovered through departmental inquiry. Penalties under sections 76, 77, and 78 were upheld. Matter remanded to adjudicating authority for service tax computation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761071</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>