<?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>2013 (1) TMI 241 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220135</link>
    <description>The tribunal upheld the demand for service tax on various receipts, including barge hire, water supply, and bunker supply, under &quot;Port Services&quot; and charter hire charges for dredgers under SOTG. The appellant&#039;s argument that these were sale transactions, not services, was rejected as the invoices indicated service components beyond mere sales. The tribunal also upheld the invocation of the extended period of limitation due to the appellant&#039;s suppression of facts and imposed penalties under the Finance Act, 1994, citing lack of bona fide doubt about tax liability. The tribunal directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 3.5 crores within 8 weeks to stay recovery during the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 29 Dec 2012 15:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=193504" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (1) TMI 241 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220135</link>
      <description>The tribunal upheld the demand for service tax on various receipts, including barge hire, water supply, and bunker supply, under &quot;Port Services&quot; and charter hire charges for dredgers under SOTG. The appellant&#039;s argument that these were sale transactions, not services, was rejected as the invoices indicated service components beyond mere sales. The tribunal also upheld the invocation of the extended period of limitation due to the appellant&#039;s suppression of facts and imposed penalties under the Finance Act, 1994, citing lack of bona fide doubt about tax liability. The tribunal directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 3.5 crores within 8 weeks to stay recovery during the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220135</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>