<?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>2012 (4) TMI 56 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211665</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the appellant&#039;s services were taxable under &quot;Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service&quot; both before and after 01.05.2006. The appellant&#039;s argument regarding liability as a sub-contractor when the main contractor had paid service tax was rejected. The Tribunal found the appellant liable for service tax collected from customers before the enforcement of Section 73A. The issue of service tax liability on emoluments versus service charges was not specifically addressed. The demand for service tax was not time-barred due to the appellant&#039;s suppression of facts. The Tribunal directed the appellant to pre-deposit Rs. 85 lakhs within eight weeks, with the balance of tax, interest, and penalty waived upon compliance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2013 16:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=185082" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (4) TMI 56 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211665</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the appellant&#039;s services were taxable under &quot;Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service&quot; both before and after 01.05.2006. The appellant&#039;s argument regarding liability as a sub-contractor when the main contractor had paid service tax was rejected. The Tribunal found the appellant liable for service tax collected from customers before the enforcement of Section 73A. The issue of service tax liability on emoluments versus service charges was not specifically addressed. The demand for service tax was not time-barred due to the appellant&#039;s suppression of facts. The Tribunal directed the appellant to pre-deposit Rs. 85 lakhs within eight weeks, with the balance of tax, interest, and penalty waived upon compliance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211665</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>