<?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>2026 (3) TMI 1529 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788774</link>
    <description>Service tax cannot be extended beyond the charging provision by valuation rules: freight margin was treated as trading profit, forex fluctuation gain as an incidental financial gain, and profit share from foreign agents on a principal-to-principal basis was not treated as Business Auxiliary Service consideration. SEZ-related charges were excluded where the activity formed part of authorised operations and exemption support was produced. Reimbursable expenses and differential CHA, C&amp;F and GTA demands based on Rule 5 were not sustained, and the extended limitation period failed because returns were regularly filed and tax was paid; one reimbursement issue linked to books of account was remanded for verification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Mar 2026 08:57:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=893497" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (3) TMI 1529 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788774</link>
      <description>Service tax cannot be extended beyond the charging provision by valuation rules: freight margin was treated as trading profit, forex fluctuation gain as an incidental financial gain, and profit share from foreign agents on a principal-to-principal basis was not treated as Business Auxiliary Service consideration. SEZ-related charges were excluded where the activity formed part of authorised operations and exemption support was produced. Reimbursable expenses and differential CHA, C&amp;F and GTA demands based on Rule 5 were not sustained, and the extended limitation period failed because returns were regularly filed and tax was paid; one reimbursement issue linked to books of account was remanded for verification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788774</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>