<?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>2002 (2) TMI 4 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78</link>
    <description>Services consisting of procuring dealer orders and forwarding them to a manufacturer for commission were held to fall within &quot;clearing and forwarding agent&quot; service, since the statutory definition covers services directly or indirectly connected with clearing and forwarding operations &quot;in any manner&quot; and does not require handling of goods; consequently, service tax liability and the demand under s. 72 were upheld and the company&#039;s appeal was dismissed. The show-cause notice was held valid in view of the validation provision in the Finance Bill/Act, 2000 deeming actions taken during the specified period to be valid; consequently, the challenge to notice failed. Separate personal penalty on the company&#039;s director was unjustified once the company was penalised; consequently, the director&#039;s penalty was set aside and the director&#039;s appeal was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Dec 2025 16:34:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=39542" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (2) TMI 4 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78</link>
      <description>Services consisting of procuring dealer orders and forwarding them to a manufacturer for commission were held to fall within &quot;clearing and forwarding agent&quot; service, since the statutory definition covers services directly or indirectly connected with clearing and forwarding operations &quot;in any manner&quot; and does not require handling of goods; consequently, service tax liability and the demand under s. 72 were upheld and the company&#039;s appeal was dismissed. The show-cause notice was held valid in view of the validation provision in the Finance Bill/Act, 2000 deeming actions taken during the specified period to be valid; consequently, the challenge to notice failed. Separate personal penalty on the company&#039;s director was unjustified once the company was penalised; consequently, the director&#039;s penalty was set aside and the director&#039;s appeal was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>