<?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 (8) TMI 744 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262827</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the appellant, an octroi clearing agent, did not fall under the classification of &quot;Business Auxiliary Service&quot; for service tax liability as they lacked authority to transfer title and were not handling documents of title. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order and granting consequential benefits, if any.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2016 11:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=393989" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (8) TMI 744 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262827</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the appellant, an octroi clearing agent, did not fall under the classification of &quot;Business Auxiliary Service&quot; for service tax liability as they lacked authority to transfer title and were not handling documents of title. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order and granting consequential benefits, if any.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262827</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>