<?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 (11) TMI 526 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218511</link>
    <description>Service tax could not be sustained on amounts received for horse-racing live telecast and royalty for the period before 1-7-2010, because the taxable category for commercial use or exploitation of an event was introduced only from that date and could not be applied retrospectively. Charges for stall or space given to book makers and caterers were also not taxable as business support service, as mere space provision was not the organised infrastructural support contemplated by that entry. The demand under intellectual property rights service failed because no specific intellectual property right was identified in the notices or orders. The tax demands, interest, and penalties were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Jun 2025 10:29:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=191883" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (11) TMI 526 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218511</link>
      <description>Service tax could not be sustained on amounts received for horse-racing live telecast and royalty for the period before 1-7-2010, because the taxable category for commercial use or exploitation of an event was introduced only from that date and could not be applied retrospectively. Charges for stall or space given to book makers and caterers were also not taxable as business support service, as mere space provision was not the organised infrastructural support contemplated by that entry. The demand under intellectual property rights service failed because no specific intellectual property right was identified in the notices or orders. The tax demands, interest, and penalties were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218511</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>