<?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 (11) TMI 179 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3912</link>
    <description>Outsourced ledger maintenance, billing and related operational work for MESCOM was held not to constitute professional accounting service by a practising chartered accountant for Service Tax purposes under Notification No. 59/98-S.T.; the Tribunal found the tasks to be manual and limited to billing-related functions, not the identification, summarisation, analysis and presentation of business transactions that define accounting. The Revenue&#039;s joint appeal was also held not maintainable because it was filed as a single appeal against a common order covering multiple noticees without separate appeals against each party. On both grounds, the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=43260" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (11) TMI 179 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3912</link>
      <description>Outsourced ledger maintenance, billing and related operational work for MESCOM was held not to constitute professional accounting service by a practising chartered accountant for Service Tax purposes under Notification No. 59/98-S.T.; the Tribunal found the tasks to be manual and limited to billing-related functions, not the identification, summarisation, analysis and presentation of business transactions that define accounting. The Revenue&#039;s joint appeal was also held not maintainable because it was filed as a single appeal against a common order covering multiple noticees without separate appeals against each party. On both grounds, the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3912</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>