Just a moment...

Top
Help
Upgrade to AI Search

We've upgraded AI Search on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:

1. Basic
Quick overview summary answering your query with referencesCategory-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI

2. Advanced
• Includes everything in Basic
Detailed report covering:
     -   Overview Summary
     -   Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars]
     -   Relevant Case Laws
     -   Tariff / Classification / HSN
     -   Expert views from TaxTMI
     -   Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy

• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:

Explore AI Search

Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

Service Tax Upheld on Exported Fish Not Classified as Agricultural Produce Under Section 66D(iii)

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....The CESTAT upheld the imposition of service tax on the appellant for fish exported without rearing or breeding, ruling that such fish do not qualify as agricultural produce under Section 66D(iii) and thus are not exempt from service tax. The tribunal held that services provided by the GTA for transporting such fish were taxable. Regarding sales commission paid to overseas agents in 2010-11 and 2013-14, the appellant was required to pay service tax upfront and could claim a refund limited to 1% of the FOB value under the relevant notifications. The appellant's failure to comply with procedural requirements constituted a violation of exemption notifications. The extended limitation period and penalty were justified due to suppression of facts.........