<?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 (6) TMI 591 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248687</link>
    <description>Services obtained from overseas logistics providers for the overseas portion of clearing and forwarding activity were prima facie treated as business auxiliary service, covering cargo collection, storage arrangements, customs clearance, space booking, forwarding and allied supervisory functions. On that footing, full waiver of pre-deposit was declined and partial deposit was ordered, with the balance of tax and penalties stayed on compliance. The plea of limitation was not decided at the stay stage because it involved mixed questions of fact and law. Demand relating to the period before 18.04.2006 was prima facie not payable in light of section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 and the cited principle on services received from abroad.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Jun 2014 16:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=357836" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (6) TMI 591 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248687</link>
      <description>Services obtained from overseas logistics providers for the overseas portion of clearing and forwarding activity were prima facie treated as business auxiliary service, covering cargo collection, storage arrangements, customs clearance, space booking, forwarding and allied supervisory functions. On that footing, full waiver of pre-deposit was declined and partial deposit was ordered, with the balance of tax and penalties stayed on compliance. The plea of limitation was not decided at the stay stage because it involved mixed questions of fact and law. Demand relating to the period before 18.04.2006 was prima facie not payable in light of section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 and the cited principle on services received from abroad.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248687</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>