<?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 (6) TMI 456 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214144</link>
    <description>The Tribunal granted the appellant&#039;s application for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery for a Service Tax demand, ruling in favor of the appellant. The appellant&#039;s argument that they were entitled to exemption under Notification No.9/2003-ST for vocational training services, including teaching English as a foreign language, was accepted. The Tribunal agreed that English should be considered a foreign language for exemption purposes and found merit in the appellant&#039;s limitation argument, ultimately concluding that the extended period of limitation did not apply. As a result, the application for waiver and stay of recovery for all amounts adjudged against the appellant was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Aug 2012 12:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=187541" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (6) TMI 456 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214144</link>
      <description>The Tribunal granted the appellant&#039;s application for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery for a Service Tax demand, ruling in favor of the appellant. The appellant&#039;s argument that they were entitled to exemption under Notification No.9/2003-ST for vocational training services, including teaching English as a foreign language, was accepted. The Tribunal agreed that English should be considered a foreign language for exemption purposes and found merit in the appellant&#039;s limitation argument, ultimately concluding that the extended period of limitation did not apply. As a result, the application for waiver and stay of recovery for all amounts adjudged against the appellant was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214144</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>