<?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 (9) TMI 598 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251572</link>
    <description>The Tribunal classified services received by BCCI under &quot;programme producer&#039;s services,&quot; holding them liable for service tax. Services related to hotel booking and transportation were excluded. The extended period for confirming the tax demand was deemed justified due to appellant&#039;s suppression of facts. Penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 were upheld for the period pre-amendment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Mar 2016 12:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=365413" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (9) TMI 598 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251572</link>
      <description>The Tribunal classified services received by BCCI under &quot;programme producer&#039;s services,&quot; holding them liable for service tax. Services related to hotel booking and transportation were excluded. The extended period for confirming the tax demand was deemed justified due to appellant&#039;s suppression of facts. Penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 were upheld for the period pre-amendment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251572</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>