<?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>2009 (3) TMI 298 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75079</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, a not-for-profit company offering management courses, in a case concerning the classification of its activities under &quot;Commercial Training or Coaching Service&quot; and the applicability of service tax. The Tribunal held that the appellant&#039;s activities were educational, not commercial, due to its charitable status and lack of profit motive. It emphasized that educational institutions charging fees should not automatically be classified as commercial training centers. The Tribunal also rejected the invocation of the extended period of limitation for service tax demand and ruled that no penalties were applicable under the Finance Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 May 2010 15:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=113353" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (3) TMI 298 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75079</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, a not-for-profit company offering management courses, in a case concerning the classification of its activities under &quot;Commercial Training or Coaching Service&quot; and the applicability of service tax. The Tribunal held that the appellant&#039;s activities were educational, not commercial, due to its charitable status and lack of profit motive. It emphasized that educational institutions charging fees should not automatically be classified as commercial training centers. The Tribunal also rejected the invocation of the extended period of limitation for service tax demand and ruled that no penalties were applicable under the Finance Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75079</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>