<?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 (9) TMI 1387 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264719</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the rectification application, directing the Judicial Member to provide supplementary findings on the issues of arrangement services provided beyond Indian territory, tax demand prior to 18.4.2006, and the availability of Section 80 benefit affecting penalty imposition under Sections 76 and 78. The Judicial Member concluded that services initiated, received, and utilized outside India were not liable for Service Tax, the tax demand prior to 18.4.2006 was not taxable, and no penalties applied as there was no suppression of facts, allowing for the benefit of Section 80 to the appellant assessee. The Third Member was tasked with resolving the differing opinions on these issues.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=399337" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (9) TMI 1387 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264719</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the rectification application, directing the Judicial Member to provide supplementary findings on the issues of arrangement services provided beyond Indian territory, tax demand prior to 18.4.2006, and the availability of Section 80 benefit affecting penalty imposition under Sections 76 and 78. The Judicial Member concluded that services initiated, received, and utilized outside India were not liable for Service Tax, the tax demand prior to 18.4.2006 was not taxable, and no penalties applied as there was no suppression of facts, allowing for the benefit of Section 80 to the appellant assessee. The Third Member was tasked with resolving the differing opinions on these issues.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264719</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>