<?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>2010 (9) TMI 666 - CESTAT,  CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205049</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that letting out vacant studio premises for film shooting did not constitute a taxable service under the category of &quot;video production agency&quot; as defined in the Act. The appellant, a leading Film Producer, was not liable to pay service tax as they did not provide technical services related to video production, only collecting hire charges for the premises. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant&#039;s case, waiving the pre-deposit requirement and staying the recovery during the appeal process, indicating a favorable stance towards the appellant. The decision emphasized the statutory definitions, the discrepancy between Board Circulars, and the limited scope of taxable services related to video tape production.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Dec 2011 17:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=178574" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (9) TMI 666 - CESTAT,  CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205049</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that letting out vacant studio premises for film shooting did not constitute a taxable service under the category of &quot;video production agency&quot; as defined in the Act. The appellant, a leading Film Producer, was not liable to pay service tax as they did not provide technical services related to video production, only collecting hire charges for the premises. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant&#039;s case, waiving the pre-deposit requirement and staying the recovery during the appeal process, indicating a favorable stance towards the appellant. The decision emphasized the statutory definitions, the discrepancy between Board Circulars, and the limited scope of taxable services related to video tape production.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205049</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>