<?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>2025 (8) TMI 169 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775982</link>
    <description>The CESTAT New Delhi dismissed the appeal, holding that transportation charges recovered by a C&amp;amp;F agent cannot be added to the assessable value for service tax without cogent evidence showing these amounts were recovered as part of taxable C&amp;amp;F services. The appellant had already paid service tax based on the agreed transaction value. The tribunal relied on precedent from CESTAT Allahabad, which ruled that double taxation on the same transaction under different service categories is impermissible under Article 265 of the Constitution. Consequently, the demand for additional service tax with interest and penalty was not sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Aug 2025 08:28:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=840652" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (8) TMI 169 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775982</link>
      <description>The CESTAT New Delhi dismissed the appeal, holding that transportation charges recovered by a C&amp;amp;F agent cannot be added to the assessable value for service tax without cogent evidence showing these amounts were recovered as part of taxable C&amp;amp;F services. The appellant had already paid service tax based on the agreed transaction value. The tribunal relied on precedent from CESTAT Allahabad, which ruled that double taxation on the same transaction under different service categories is impermissible under Article 265 of the Constitution. Consequently, the demand for additional service tax with interest and penalty was not sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775982</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>