<?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>2004 (12) TMI 2 - CESTAT (MUMBAI)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217</link>
    <description>Storage facilities used for liquid and gaseous cargo pending customs clearance were treated as separately chargeable storage and warehousing, not as a mere letting of space. The note records that clause 87 of the Finance Act, 2002 expanded storage and warehousing to include goods such as liquids and gases, and that the applicants&#039; own description of the service in distinct components weakened the claim that the activity was wholly covered by minor port services. Because the storage facility was outside the port premises and the limitation plea was not prima facie strong, no complete waiver of pre-deposit under Section 35F was established; substantial pre-deposit was directed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2008 18:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=39681" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (12) TMI 2 - CESTAT (MUMBAI)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217</link>
      <description>Storage facilities used for liquid and gaseous cargo pending customs clearance were treated as separately chargeable storage and warehousing, not as a mere letting of space. The note records that clause 87 of the Finance Act, 2002 expanded storage and warehousing to include goods such as liquids and gases, and that the applicants&#039; own description of the service in distinct components weakened the claim that the activity was wholly covered by minor port services. Because the storage facility was outside the port premises and the limitation plea was not prima facie strong, no complete waiver of pre-deposit under Section 35F was established; substantial pre-deposit was directed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>