<?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 (9) TMI 1637 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779148</link>
    <description>Exemption notifications must be strictly complied with, and an assessee claiming benefit for commission paid to overseas agents must satisfy the prescribed conditions, including supporting documents and disclosure in the shipping bill. Where the appellant failed to produce the required originals and relied on an asserted oral arrangement, the exemption under Notification No. 18/2009-ST was denied and the service tax demand was sustained. The demand was also held to be within the normal limitation period because the show-cause notices were issued within one year from the relevant dates. Interest remained payable as tax was unpaid, but the penalty under Section 76 was set aside in view of the export-related nature of the dispute.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Sep 2025 10:37:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=855410" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (9) TMI 1637 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779148</link>
      <description>Exemption notifications must be strictly complied with, and an assessee claiming benefit for commission paid to overseas agents must satisfy the prescribed conditions, including supporting documents and disclosure in the shipping bill. Where the appellant failed to produce the required originals and relied on an asserted oral arrangement, the exemption under Notification No. 18/2009-ST was denied and the service tax demand was sustained. The demand was also held to be within the normal limitation period because the show-cause notices were issued within one year from the relevant dates. Interest remained payable as tax was unpaid, but the penalty under Section 76 was set aside in view of the export-related nature of the dispute.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779148</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>