<?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 (11) TMI 44 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238867</link>
    <description>Development fee collected under section 22A of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 was treated as a statutory levy for airport upgradation, expansion and development, not as contractual consideration for taxable airport service. The reasoning further noted that such a levy could not be indirectly subjected to service tax where the related construction, erection, commissioning or installation activities were outside the taxable net during the relevant period or otherwise exempted. As the adjudicating authority had not properly examined the statutory scheme, binding precedents and circulars, the demand of service tax, interest and penalties was not finally sustained and the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication after hearing the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Feb 2017 13:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=334117" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (11) TMI 44 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238867</link>
      <description>Development fee collected under section 22A of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 was treated as a statutory levy for airport upgradation, expansion and development, not as contractual consideration for taxable airport service. The reasoning further noted that such a levy could not be indirectly subjected to service tax where the related construction, erection, commissioning or installation activities were outside the taxable net during the relevant period or otherwise exempted. As the adjudicating authority had not properly examined the statutory scheme, binding precedents and circulars, the demand of service tax, interest and penalties was not finally sustained and the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication after hearing the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238867</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>