<?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 (12) TMI 492 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240827</link>
    <description>Service tax was held inapplicable to services rendered by an SEZ unit to its DTA unit where both operated as parts of the same enterprise and were not separate legal persons. Separate registrations and invoices were insufficient to treat the units as distinct entities for tax purposes. Rule 19(7) of the SEZ Rules recognises a single enterprise operating in both SEZ and DTA, requires distinct identities and separate books of account, but does not make the SEZ unit a separate legal entity. On that basis, the Tribunal concluded that a tax charge requiring a service between one person and another could not be sustained, and the related demand, interest and penalties were unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Dec 2013 09:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=338998" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (12) TMI 492 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240827</link>
      <description>Service tax was held inapplicable to services rendered by an SEZ unit to its DTA unit where both operated as parts of the same enterprise and were not separate legal persons. Separate registrations and invoices were insufficient to treat the units as distinct entities for tax purposes. Rule 19(7) of the SEZ Rules recognises a single enterprise operating in both SEZ and DTA, requires distinct identities and separate books of account, but does not make the SEZ unit a separate legal entity. On that basis, the Tribunal concluded that a tax charge requiring a service between one person and another could not be sustained, and the related demand, interest and penalties were unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240827</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>