<?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>2015 (4) TMI 38 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258156</link>
    <description>The appeal filed by the Revenue against the service tax liability of the respondent under &quot;Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Service&quot; was rejected by the Tribunal. The Tribunal considered previous judgments and concluded that the services provided by the respondent were not covered under the specified category. It highlighted the importance of interpreting agreements based on their terms and conditions. The Tribunal noted that the relevant provisions at the time of the notice did not cover the services provided and that subsequent amendments clarified taxable services. Therefore, the appeal lacked merit, and the cross objection was disposed of accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Dec 2015 10:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=380175" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (4) TMI 38 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258156</link>
      <description>The appeal filed by the Revenue against the service tax liability of the respondent under &quot;Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Service&quot; was rejected by the Tribunal. The Tribunal considered previous judgments and concluded that the services provided by the respondent were not covered under the specified category. It highlighted the importance of interpreting agreements based on their terms and conditions. The Tribunal noted that the relevant provisions at the time of the notice did not cover the services provided and that subsequent amendments clarified taxable services. Therefore, the appeal lacked merit, and the cross objection was disposed of accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258156</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>