<?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 (3) TMI 528 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325344</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant in a case concerning service tax liability on amounts paid to foreign entities and marketing services for their parent concern. The Tribunal held that service tax liability did not arise before 18.04.2006 and dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, setting aside the tax demand. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the appellant&#039;s marketing services for their parent concern did not attract service tax liability, based on precedents and settled views, leading to the appeal being allowed. The demand for service tax liability due to the withdrawal of a specific notification was also rejected by the Tribunal, citing legal positions and clarifications, resulting in the impugned order being set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Nov 2018 17:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=420404" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (3) TMI 528 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325344</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant in a case concerning service tax liability on amounts paid to foreign entities and marketing services for their parent concern. The Tribunal held that service tax liability did not arise before 18.04.2006 and dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, setting aside the tax demand. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the appellant&#039;s marketing services for their parent concern did not attract service tax liability, based on precedents and settled views, leading to the appeal being allowed. The demand for service tax liability due to the withdrawal of a specific notification was also rejected by the Tribunal, citing legal positions and clarifications, resulting in the impugned order being set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325344</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>