<?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 (6) TMI 466 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75790</link>
    <description>Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 took effect only from 18-4-2006, so service tax could not be validly demanded from a recipient of taxable services imported from abroad for the period 1-1-2005 to 17-4-2006. The demand raised under section 73(1) for the pre-18-4-2006 period therefore lacked legal authority and could not be sustained. Because the tax demand itself failed, the consequential levy of interest and penalty also had no basis. The impugned order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=114044" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (6) TMI 466 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75790</link>
      <description>Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 took effect only from 18-4-2006, so service tax could not be validly demanded from a recipient of taxable services imported from abroad for the period 1-1-2005 to 17-4-2006. The demand raised under section 73(1) for the pre-18-4-2006 period therefore lacked legal authority and could not be sustained. Because the tax demand itself failed, the consequential levy of interest and penalty also had no basis. The impugned order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75790</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>