<?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 (10) TMI 300 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237845</link>
    <description>The Tribunal granted partial relief to the applicant in the case, waiving pre-deposit for certain demands related to service tax, interest, and penalties. The demands concerning availing credit in excess and broadcasting services were contested successfully, as the transfer of copyright and service recipient location justified the applicant&#039;s arguments. However, for the demand related to Business Auxiliary Service, the Tribunal directed the applicant to deposit Rs. 20,00,000 within a specified period, as they failed to establish a prima facie case for total waiver of pre-deposit. The judgment emphasized the importance of defining services under the Finance Act for determining taxability based on service nature and recipient location.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2014 12:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=200252" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (10) TMI 300 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237845</link>
      <description>The Tribunal granted partial relief to the applicant in the case, waiving pre-deposit for certain demands related to service tax, interest, and penalties. The demands concerning availing credit in excess and broadcasting services were contested successfully, as the transfer of copyright and service recipient location justified the applicant&#039;s arguments. However, for the demand related to Business Auxiliary Service, the Tribunal directed the applicant to deposit Rs. 20,00,000 within a specified period, as they failed to establish a prima facie case for total waiver of pre-deposit. The judgment emphasized the importance of defining services under the Finance Act for determining taxability based on service nature and recipient location.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237845</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>