<?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 2459 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267185</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the demand for service tax liability under &#039;Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Services&#039;, citing that the deputation of employees to group companies did not fall under this category. The liability under &#039;Business Auxiliary Service&#039; was upheld, with penalties imposed for inadvertent errors being rejected. The penalties were ultimately set aside due to the rejection of the main demand, resulting in the appeal being disposed of accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2015 15:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=403765" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 2459 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267185</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the demand for service tax liability under &#039;Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Services&#039;, citing that the deputation of employees to group companies did not fall under this category. The liability under &#039;Business Auxiliary Service&#039; was upheld, with penalties imposed for inadvertent errors being rejected. The penalties were ultimately set aside due to the rejection of the main demand, resulting in the appeal being disposed of accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267185</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>