<?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>2008 (2) TMI 26 - CESTAT  BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3608</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant in a Service Tax dispute with a foreign consultant. The demand exceeded the scope of the show cause notice, which only specified liability for &quot;Consulting Engineer&quot; services, not other services. Precedents established that Service Tax is payable only on services mentioned in the notice. The Tribunal found the demand unsustainable, allowing the appeal with consequential relief. No interest or penalty was levied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Oct 2019 16:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=42959" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (2) TMI 26 - CESTAT  BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3608</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant in a Service Tax dispute with a foreign consultant. The demand exceeded the scope of the show cause notice, which only specified liability for &quot;Consulting Engineer&quot; services, not other services. Precedents established that Service Tax is payable only on services mentioned in the notice. The Tribunal found the demand unsustainable, allowing the appeal with consequential relief. No interest or penalty was levied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3608</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>