<?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 (6) TMI 525 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793144</link>
    <description>Accommodation, medical, vehicle running and maintenance, telephone, dog squad and stationery expenses were held not includible in the taxable value for service tax where they represented reimbursements or notional facility values provided by the service recipient. The Tribunal followed earlier decisions in the assessee&#039;s own cases and other rulings to hold that such amounts do not form part of the assessable value. On that basis, the demand based on their inclusion was unsustainable, and the extended period demand was also treated as not maintainable on the facts already accepted in the prior decisions. The disputed additions were therefore rejected and the demand was set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Jun 2026 07:26:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=906319" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (6) TMI 525 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793144</link>
      <description>Accommodation, medical, vehicle running and maintenance, telephone, dog squad and stationery expenses were held not includible in the taxable value for service tax where they represented reimbursements or notional facility values provided by the service recipient. The Tribunal followed earlier decisions in the assessee&#039;s own cases and other rulings to hold that such amounts do not form part of the assessable value. On that basis, the demand based on their inclusion was unsustainable, and the extended period demand was also treated as not maintainable on the facts already accepted in the prior decisions. The disputed additions were therefore rejected and the demand was set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793144</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>