<?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 219 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258337</link>
    <description>The appellant&#039;s appeal was allowed with relief, while the Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed. The Cross objection was also disposed of accordingly. The demand duty was set aside, negating the need for interest and penalty imposition, as the appellant was found not to be acting as a Commission Agent under Business Auxiliary Services but solely providing Mandap Keeper services, distinct from the decorator&#039;s services.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2015 18:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=380682" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (4) TMI 219 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258337</link>
      <description>The appellant&#039;s appeal was allowed with relief, while the Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed. The Cross objection was also disposed of accordingly. The demand duty was set aside, negating the need for interest and penalty imposition, as the appellant was found not to be acting as a Commission Agent under Business Auxiliary Services but solely providing Mandap Keeper services, distinct from the decorator&#039;s services.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258337</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>