<?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 496 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240831</link>
    <description>Predeposit was waived for service tax demands arising from free warranty service and the extended warranty scheme, and recovery was stayed during pendency of the appeal. For the free warranty issue, the value of spare parts and materials used during warranty service had already been protected in a prior stay order of the same Bench, so waiver was granted at the admission stage. For the extended warranty issue, the booklet indicated prima facie that the warranty service was provided by another company while the applicant only canvassed business for commission; on that basis, the amount received did not at this stage appear to be consideration for a taxable service by the applicant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Dec 2013 09:13:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=339002" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (12) TMI 496 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240831</link>
      <description>Predeposit was waived for service tax demands arising from free warranty service and the extended warranty scheme, and recovery was stayed during pendency of the appeal. For the free warranty issue, the value of spare parts and materials used during warranty service had already been protected in a prior stay order of the same Bench, so waiver was granted at the admission stage. For the extended warranty issue, the booklet indicated prima facie that the warranty service was provided by another company while the applicant only canvassed business for commission; on that basis, the amount received did not at this stage appear to be consideration for a taxable service by the applicant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240831</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>