<?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 793 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241128</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the registration fee collected was non-refundable and should be included in the taxable service value for service tax liability. The respondent&#039;s failure to disclose the fee in the ST3 returns constituted suppression, supporting the Revenue&#039;s claim of evasion. As a result, the original order was reinstated, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the Revenue, overturning the Commissioner (Appeals) decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Dec 2013 11:12:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=339617" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (12) TMI 793 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241128</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the registration fee collected was non-refundable and should be included in the taxable service value for service tax liability. The respondent&#039;s failure to disclose the fee in the ST3 returns constituted suppression, supporting the Revenue&#039;s claim of evasion. As a result, the original order was reinstated, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the Revenue, overturning the Commissioner (Appeals) decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241128</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>