<?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>2014 (1) TMI 44 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241819</link>
    <description>Activities involving supply of buses, cars and taxis for transporting staff, and arranging cars taken on hire from others on commission, were treated as falling within tour operator service and rent-a-cab scheme operator service because the statutory definitions were satisfied even without vehicle ownership. Service tax liability under both heads was therefore upheld. The penalty position required fresh consideration because the appellate record had not examined the claimed abatement benefit under the relevant notification, and the findings on penalties under Sections 76 and 78 were internally inconsistent. Those penalty issues were remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for reconsideration after hearing the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Apr 2014 13:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=341460" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (1) TMI 44 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241819</link>
      <description>Activities involving supply of buses, cars and taxis for transporting staff, and arranging cars taken on hire from others on commission, were treated as falling within tour operator service and rent-a-cab scheme operator service because the statutory definitions were satisfied even without vehicle ownership. Service tax liability under both heads was therefore upheld. The penalty position required fresh consideration because the appellate record had not examined the claimed abatement benefit under the relevant notification, and the findings on penalties under Sections 76 and 78 were internally inconsistent. Those penalty issues were remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for reconsideration after hearing the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241819</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>