<?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 937 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776749</link>
    <description>Mark-up earned on purchase and resale of cargo space was treated as principal-to-principal trading rather than Business Auxiliary Service, because the appellant booked space on its own account, bore commercial risk, and acted without any principal-agent relationship with carriers or customers. Its status as a Multimodal Transport Operator and responsibility for safe carriage supported the view that it was not rendering service on behalf of another person. Consistent Tribunal precedent and the departmental circular on freight forwarders acting on their own account reinforced that the activity fell outside the service tax net, so the demand could not survive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Aug 2025 08:38:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=844232" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (8) TMI 937 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776749</link>
      <description>Mark-up earned on purchase and resale of cargo space was treated as principal-to-principal trading rather than Business Auxiliary Service, because the appellant booked space on its own account, bore commercial risk, and acted without any principal-agent relationship with carriers or customers. Its status as a Multimodal Transport Operator and responsibility for safe carriage supported the view that it was not rendering service on behalf of another person. Consistent Tribunal precedent and the departmental circular on freight forwarders acting on their own account reinforced that the activity fell outside the service tax net, so the demand could not survive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776749</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>