<?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>2011 (5) TMI 108 - CESTAT,  BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203793</link>
    <description>Service tax demand on electricity wheeling or distribution treated as Business Auxiliary Service was held unsustainable because the relevant period was covered by Notification No. 45/2010-ST dated 20 July 2010. The dispute was also stated to be covered by an earlier identical decision of the same Bench, and that notification protected the activity for the period in question. On that basis, the demand could not be sustained and was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Jun 2011 16:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=177345" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (5) TMI 108 - CESTAT,  BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203793</link>
      <description>Service tax demand on electricity wheeling or distribution treated as Business Auxiliary Service was held unsustainable because the relevant period was covered by Notification No. 45/2010-ST dated 20 July 2010. The dispute was also stated to be covered by an earlier identical decision of the same Bench, and that notification protected the activity for the period in question. On that basis, the demand could not be sustained and was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203793</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>