<?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 (6) TMI 695 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260770</link>
    <description>Arrangement fee and agent bank fee paid to overseas banks were examined for service tax under reverse charge as banking and other financial services, with one view treating finance-arranging and agency services as taxable import of services received in India and therefore liable from 18.04.2006. On limitation and penalties, one view applied the extended period for alleged non-disclosure and upheld penalties, while the contrary view found the payments were reflected in the books and suppression was not established, so extended limitation and penalties were not invocable. The Members differed, and the matter was referred to a Third Member on taxability, limitation, and penalties.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=388219" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (6) TMI 695 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260770</link>
      <description>Arrangement fee and agent bank fee paid to overseas banks were examined for service tax under reverse charge as banking and other financial services, with one view treating finance-arranging and agency services as taxable import of services received in India and therefore liable from 18.04.2006. On limitation and penalties, one view applied the extended period for alleged non-disclosure and upheld penalties, while the contrary view found the payments were reflected in the books and suppression was not established, so extended limitation and penalties were not invocable. The Members differed, and the matter was referred to a Third Member on taxability, limitation, and penalties.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260770</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>