<?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>2010 (5) TMI 756 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164220</link>
    <description>The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) set aside an order regarding the taxable category of clearing and forwarding agent services, ruling that the respondent&#039;s activities did not align with the definition of a C and F agent under section 65(25) of the Finance Act, 1994. The court found that the respondent&#039;s activities focused on procuring customers and fulfilling obligations for the foreign principal, rather than providing traditional C and F agent services. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal by the Revenue, holding that the respondent was not liable for service tax as a clearing and forwarding agent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Oct 2014 12:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=352872" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (5) TMI 756 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164220</link>
      <description>The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) set aside an order regarding the taxable category of clearing and forwarding agent services, ruling that the respondent&#039;s activities did not align with the definition of a C and F agent under section 65(25) of the Finance Act, 1994. The court found that the respondent&#039;s activities focused on procuring customers and fulfilling obligations for the foreign principal, rather than providing traditional C and F agent services. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal by the Revenue, holding that the respondent was not liable for service tax as a clearing and forwarding agent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164220</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>