<?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 (11) TMI 359 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77272</link>
    <description>Service tax was held not leviable on testing services rendered by one unit of the same corporate entity to another unit, because inter-unit activity within a single company is not treated as a service to a separate legal person. The earlier view treating the units as distinct entities was rejected in favour of later Tribunal decisions. As no taxable service arose on self-supply, the penalties also could not be sustained and were set aside, leaving the assessee without tax liability on the inter-unit testing arrangement.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=115443" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (11) TMI 359 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77272</link>
      <description>Service tax was held not leviable on testing services rendered by one unit of the same corporate entity to another unit, because inter-unit activity within a single company is not treated as a service to a separate legal person. The earlier view treating the units as distinct entities was rejected in favour of later Tribunal decisions. As no taxable service arose on self-supply, the penalties also could not be sustained and were set aside, leaving the assessee without tax liability on the inter-unit testing arrangement.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77272</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>