<?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>2006 (12) TMI 50 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1400</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Order-in-Appeal, ruling that the Respondent&#039;s service was &#039;rent-a-cab&#039; and not &#039;tour operator.&#039; It clarified that Government offices hiring taxis for official use did not qualify as &#039;tour operators,&#039; dismissing the Revenue&#039;s appeal. The decision highlighted the difference between the two service categories, emphasizing that all taxis, including auto rickshaws, should not be considered &#039;tour operators.&#039;</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=40811" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (12) TMI 50 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1400</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Order-in-Appeal, ruling that the Respondent&#039;s service was &#039;rent-a-cab&#039; and not &#039;tour operator.&#039; It clarified that Government offices hiring taxis for official use did not qualify as &#039;tour operators,&#039; dismissing the Revenue&#039;s appeal. The decision highlighted the difference between the two service categories, emphasizing that all taxis, including auto rickshaws, should not be considered &#039;tour operators.&#039;</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1400</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>