<?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 (4) TMI 639 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246202</link>
    <description>The appellant&#039;s service tax liability on manpower recruitment agency services was upheld due to failure to provide evidence of income receipt in convertible foreign exchange, resulting in tax demand on entire service charges. Liability on franchise services was acknowledged with penalties waived. Demand for wrongly utilized CENVAT credit was upheld, but penalties could be waived. Irregular CENVAT credit on mobile phones was allowed. Penalties under Sections 76 &amp;amp; 78 were waived, while penalties under Sections 77 and Rule 15(3) of CCR were upheld. Penalty under Rule 15(4) of CCR was set aside. Appellant allowed appropriation of amounts for payment convenience.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Apr 2014 16:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=352691" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (4) TMI 639 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246202</link>
      <description>The appellant&#039;s service tax liability on manpower recruitment agency services was upheld due to failure to provide evidence of income receipt in convertible foreign exchange, resulting in tax demand on entire service charges. Liability on franchise services was acknowledged with penalties waived. Demand for wrongly utilized CENVAT credit was upheld, but penalties could be waived. Irregular CENVAT credit on mobile phones was allowed. Penalties under Sections 76 &amp;amp; 78 were waived, while penalties under Sections 77 and Rule 15(3) of CCR were upheld. Penalty under Rule 15(4) of CCR was set aside. Appellant allowed appropriation of amounts for payment convenience.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246202</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>