<?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>2008 (1) TMI 881 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175551</link>
    <description>The case involved the interpretation of service tax liability on vehicles provided with drivers for transport services under the Motor Vehicles Act and the &#039;rent a cab operator&#039; scheme. The appellant&#039;s agreement with BSNL for providing vehicles with drivers led to a dispute over service tax. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the tax demand, but the appellant argued that the services did not fall under the &#039;rent a cab operator&#039; scheme. The tribunal agreed, ruling that providing vehicles for journeys as needed, without continuous rental, did not qualify under the scheme. The appellant was granted a waiver of pre-deposit of tax and a stay of recovery pending final appeal disposal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2015 11:24:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=406602" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (1) TMI 881 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175551</link>
      <description>The case involved the interpretation of service tax liability on vehicles provided with drivers for transport services under the Motor Vehicles Act and the &#039;rent a cab operator&#039; scheme. The appellant&#039;s agreement with BSNL for providing vehicles with drivers led to a dispute over service tax. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the tax demand, but the appellant argued that the services did not fall under the &#039;rent a cab operator&#039; scheme. The tribunal agreed, ruling that providing vehicles for journeys as needed, without continuous rental, did not qualify under the scheme. The appellant was granted a waiver of pre-deposit of tax and a stay of recovery pending final appeal disposal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175551</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>