<?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 (8) TMI 337 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75758</link>
    <description>The appellate court held that the appellant company, as the successor to the electricity board, provided taxable &quot;consulting engineers service&quot; to consumers of electrical energy. The court found that service tax applied to supervision charges collected from consumers and that the service fell within the definition of taxable service under the Finance Act, 1994. The court also ruled that the lower appellate authority exceeded its jurisdiction by remanding the case and emphasized the need for adherence to legal frameworks. Ownership of infrastructure did not negate the taxable service provided. The case was remanded for quantification of service tax and penalty reconsideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Aug 2010 12:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=114013" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (8) TMI 337 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75758</link>
      <description>The appellate court held that the appellant company, as the successor to the electricity board, provided taxable &quot;consulting engineers service&quot; to consumers of electrical energy. The court found that service tax applied to supervision charges collected from consumers and that the service fell within the definition of taxable service under the Finance Act, 1994. The court also ruled that the lower appellate authority exceeded its jurisdiction by remanding the case and emphasized the need for adherence to legal frameworks. Ownership of infrastructure did not negate the taxable service provided. The case was remanded for quantification of service tax and penalty reconsideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75758</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>