<?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 1017 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241352</link>
    <description>In a service tax dispute concerning training services, Cenvat credit and tax on services received from foreign associated companies, CESTAT Mumbai held that complete waiver of pre-deposit was not justified because a short payment remained even after accounting for amounts already deposited, Cenvat credit adjustment and the claim under Notification No. 9/2003-ST for computer training. The Tribunal also noted the appellant&#039;s admission that taxable services were received from foreign service providers, creating liability as recipient. The appellant was therefore directed to deposit Rs. 20,00,000 in addition to amounts already paid, while the balance demand was waived and recovery stayed during the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Dec 2013 08:45:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=340249" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (12) TMI 1017 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241352</link>
      <description>In a service tax dispute concerning training services, Cenvat credit and tax on services received from foreign associated companies, CESTAT Mumbai held that complete waiver of pre-deposit was not justified because a short payment remained even after accounting for amounts already deposited, Cenvat credit adjustment and the claim under Notification No. 9/2003-ST for computer training. The Tribunal also noted the appellant&#039;s admission that taxable services were received from foreign service providers, creating liability as recipient. The appellant was therefore directed to deposit Rs. 20,00,000 in addition to amounts already paid, while the balance demand was waived and recovery stayed during the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241352</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>