<?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 1009 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269705</link>
    <description>The tribunal held that the commission received by the appellant for disbursement of Govt. teachers&#039; salary does not fall under Business Auxiliary Services. It was determined that the appellant cannot be categorized as a commission agent as the activities did not align with the definition under the Finance Act, 2005. The tribunal set aside the demand for service tax liability, interest, and penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority, ruling in favor of the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Dec 2015 08:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=409686" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (12) TMI 1009 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269705</link>
      <description>The tribunal held that the commission received by the appellant for disbursement of Govt. teachers&#039; salary does not fall under Business Auxiliary Services. It was determined that the appellant cannot be categorized as a commission agent as the activities did not align with the definition under the Finance Act, 2005. The tribunal set aside the demand for service tax liability, interest, and penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority, ruling in favor of the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269705</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>