<?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 (12) TMI 22 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268718</link>
    <description>The appellant&#039;s appeal against an Order-in-Appeal regarding service tax liability on activities related to painting, pasting, and displaying on buses for clients was rejected. The appellant failed to discharge the service tax liability, claiming the services fell under &quot;Sale of Space or Time for Advertisement&quot; rather than &quot;Advertising Agency&quot; services. The Tribunal found the appellant misdirected their defense and upheld the lower authorities&#039; decision to confirm the demand for the outstanding service tax, penalties, and interest. The appeal was deemed meritless, and the impugned order was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Dec 2015 00:54:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=407120" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (12) TMI 22 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268718</link>
      <description>The appellant&#039;s appeal against an Order-in-Appeal regarding service tax liability on activities related to painting, pasting, and displaying on buses for clients was rejected. The appellant failed to discharge the service tax liability, claiming the services fell under &quot;Sale of Space or Time for Advertisement&quot; rather than &quot;Advertising Agency&quot; services. The Tribunal found the appellant misdirected their defense and upheld the lower authorities&#039; decision to confirm the demand for the outstanding service tax, penalties, and interest. The appeal was deemed meritless, and the impugned order was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268718</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>