<?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 (9) TMI 225 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75670</link>
    <description>The Member (T) held that the appellant was liable to pay service tax on the supply of vehicles to M/s. BSNL. The appellant&#039;s argument that the services were for official use was dismissed, and the Revenue&#039;s position that the vehicles were under BSNL&#039;s control for official purposes was upheld. The appellant was directed to pay service tax based on the gross amount received, as no separate amount for tax was claimed. The appeal was rejected, and the matter was remanded for recalculation of the tax amount.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Apr 2013 15:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=113930" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (9) TMI 225 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75670</link>
      <description>The Member (T) held that the appellant was liable to pay service tax on the supply of vehicles to M/s. BSNL. The appellant&#039;s argument that the services were for official use was dismissed, and the Revenue&#039;s position that the vehicles were under BSNL&#039;s control for official purposes was upheld. The appellant was directed to pay service tax based on the gross amount received, as no separate amount for tax was claimed. The appeal was rejected, and the matter was remanded for recalculation of the tax amount.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75670</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>