<?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 (10) TMI 458 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265183</link>
    <description>Transport of goods by buses was held not to fall within Business Support Service merely because the goods belonged to businessmen, as the activity remained transportation of goods rather than an allied business support function; the corresponding demand was set aside. Operation of buses under a contract carriage permit was treated as answering the statutory description of tour operator service, because a tourist vehicle is linked to a contract carriage under the Motor Vehicles Act, but the demand on that count required fresh adjudication on the retrospective exemption, limitation and penalty defences. The uncontested portion of the demand was sustained, while the tour operator issue was remanded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 May 2016 14:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=400324" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 458 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265183</link>
      <description>Transport of goods by buses was held not to fall within Business Support Service merely because the goods belonged to businessmen, as the activity remained transportation of goods rather than an allied business support function; the corresponding demand was set aside. Operation of buses under a contract carriage permit was treated as answering the statutory description of tour operator service, because a tourist vehicle is linked to a contract carriage under the Motor Vehicles Act, but the demand on that count required fresh adjudication on the retrospective exemption, limitation and penalty defences. The uncontested portion of the demand was sustained, while the tour operator issue was remanded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265183</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>