<?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 (4) TMI 212 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789143</link>
    <description>Trade discount reimbursements and target-linked incentives received by an authorised car dealer from the manufacturer were held not to constitute consideration for a taxable service under the Finance Act, 1994, because the dealer operated on a principal-to-principal basis and no distinct service to the manufacturer was shown. Reimbursements of customer discounts merely reduced the purchase price, while sales-linked incentives were commercial trade discounts tied to performance, not a service activity or declared service. As the underlying service tax demand was unsustainable, the related tax, interest, and penalties also failed. The penalty imposed on the Accounts Manager was likewise set aside because it was wholly dependent on the main demand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Apr 2026 08:53:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=895016" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (4) TMI 212 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789143</link>
      <description>Trade discount reimbursements and target-linked incentives received by an authorised car dealer from the manufacturer were held not to constitute consideration for a taxable service under the Finance Act, 1994, because the dealer operated on a principal-to-principal basis and no distinct service to the manufacturer was shown. Reimbursements of customer discounts merely reduced the purchase price, while sales-linked incentives were commercial trade discounts tied to performance, not a service activity or declared service. As the underlying service tax demand was unsustainable, the related tax, interest, and penalties also failed. The penalty imposed on the Accounts Manager was likewise set aside because it was wholly dependent on the main demand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789143</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>