<?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>2016 (2) TMI 222 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271517</link>
    <description>Stevedoring and lighterage services at a port were not taxable as port services for the period before 01.07.2010 because, under the pre-amendment definition, tax applied only where the service was rendered by the port or by a person authorised by the port, and the assessee had no such authorisation. From 01.07.2010, the expanded wording brought all services rendered within a port within the tax net, so the demand was sustainable for the later period. A bona fide classification dispute supported by divergent views and departmental clarification did not amount to suppression with intent to evade tax, so the extended period of limitation and penalties were not invocable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2016 10:04:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=415684" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (2) TMI 222 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271517</link>
      <description>Stevedoring and lighterage services at a port were not taxable as port services for the period before 01.07.2010 because, under the pre-amendment definition, tax applied only where the service was rendered by the port or by a person authorised by the port, and the assessee had no such authorisation. From 01.07.2010, the expanded wording brought all services rendered within a port within the tax net, so the demand was sustainable for the later period. A bona fide classification dispute supported by divergent views and departmental clarification did not amount to suppression with intent to evade tax, so the extended period of limitation and penalties were not invocable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271517</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>