<?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 602 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239425</link>
    <description>Market fee collected by an agricultural produce market committee under the Maharashtra Agriculture Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 was stated to be outside service tax, following the Tribunal&#039;s earlier reasoning in the same assessee&#039;s matter, so the related tax demand, interest and penalties were said to fail. In a separate head, where liability under renting of immovable property had already been discharged with interest, penalty was said to have no surviving basis. The document therefore records that the market-fee demand was treated as not sustainable and that penalty for the renting transaction was considered unwarranted once tax and interest had been paid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Nov 2013 11:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=335477" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (11) TMI 602 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239425</link>
      <description>Market fee collected by an agricultural produce market committee under the Maharashtra Agriculture Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 was stated to be outside service tax, following the Tribunal&#039;s earlier reasoning in the same assessee&#039;s matter, so the related tax demand, interest and penalties were said to fail. In a separate head, where liability under renting of immovable property had already been discharged with interest, penalty was said to have no surviving basis. The document therefore records that the market-fee demand was treated as not sustainable and that penalty for the renting transaction was considered unwarranted once tax and interest had been paid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239425</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>