<?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>2007 (7) TMI 168 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3418</link>
    <description>A statutory exemption under the General Insurance Business (Nationalization) Act, 1972 did not displace service tax liability on motor insurance activity under the Finance Act, 1994 because no specific exemption, notification, or clarification under the service tax law was produced. The activity remained within the taxable category of general insurance business, and the exemption plea failed. The extended period of limitation was also upheld because the appellant did not disclose relevant particulars or obtain clarification, and no basis was shown to defeat the longer limitation period. The demand was sustained in full, and no penalty issue arose because none had been imposed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2008 18:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=42770" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (7) TMI 168 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3418</link>
      <description>A statutory exemption under the General Insurance Business (Nationalization) Act, 1972 did not displace service tax liability on motor insurance activity under the Finance Act, 1994 because no specific exemption, notification, or clarification under the service tax law was produced. The activity remained within the taxable category of general insurance business, and the exemption plea failed. The extended period of limitation was also upheld because the appellant did not disclose relevant particulars or obtain clarification, and no basis was shown to defeat the longer limitation period. The demand was sustained in full, and no penalty issue arose because none had been imposed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3418</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>