<?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 (8) TMI 590 - CESTAT  MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250640</link>
    <description>Classification of third-party software, in-house standardised software and hardware as taxable services was prima facie unsustainable where the demand rested on a classification not covered by the show-cause notice and the transactions appeared to be sale of goods, including resale on VAT payment, rather than transfer of copyright or a taxable intellectual property service. Services rendered to SEZ units were also treated as exempt only if the prescribed SEZ procedure was followed; absent such compliance, the exemption was not available prima facie and tax liability remained. Interim protection was therefore confined to partial pre-deposit with stay of the balance demand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Feb 2017 18:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=363287" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (8) TMI 590 - CESTAT  MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250640</link>
      <description>Classification of third-party software, in-house standardised software and hardware as taxable services was prima facie unsustainable where the demand rested on a classification not covered by the show-cause notice and the transactions appeared to be sale of goods, including resale on VAT payment, rather than transfer of copyright or a taxable intellectual property service. Services rendered to SEZ units were also treated as exempt only if the prescribed SEZ procedure was followed; absent such compliance, the exemption was not available prima facie and tax liability remained. Interim protection was therefore confined to partial pre-deposit with stay of the balance demand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250640</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>