<?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 (9) TMI 561 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216753</link>
    <description>The appellate authority granted waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery for Service Tax dues amounting to Rs. 2,05,494/- and penalties for the period 2004-2005 to 2008-09. Despite the appeal being filed beyond the statutory period, the authority found merit in the appellant&#039;s argument that they were not liable for Service Tax on freight as they did not pay it, leading to the relief granted. The dispute revolved around the interpretation of Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, which imposed liability on the person paying the freight, ultimately resulting in the appellant&#039;s favor due to non-payment of freight. The tribunal also emphasized the Commissioner&#039;s power to condone the two-day delay in filing the appeal, focusing on the substantive issue of Service Tax liability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Jan 2014 14:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=190132" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (9) TMI 561 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216753</link>
      <description>The appellate authority granted waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery for Service Tax dues amounting to Rs. 2,05,494/- and penalties for the period 2004-2005 to 2008-09. Despite the appeal being filed beyond the statutory period, the authority found merit in the appellant&#039;s argument that they were not liable for Service Tax on freight as they did not pay it, leading to the relief granted. The dispute revolved around the interpretation of Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, which imposed liability on the person paying the freight, ultimately resulting in the appellant&#039;s favor due to non-payment of freight. The tribunal also emphasized the Commissioner&#039;s power to condone the two-day delay in filing the appeal, focusing on the substantive issue of Service Tax liability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216753</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>