<?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 (1) TMI 102 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4103</link>
    <description>The appeal against the demand of service tax and penalties imposed on the appellants for providing business auxiliary services to ICICI Bank was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi. The tribunal held that the appellants were promoting retail finance as per the agreement terms, constituting business auxiliary services. The dismissal was based on the appellants receiving commission for services without paying any franchise fee to the bank.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=43450" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (1) TMI 102 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4103</link>
      <description>The appeal against the demand of service tax and penalties imposed on the appellants for providing business auxiliary services to ICICI Bank was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi. The tribunal held that the appellants were promoting retail finance as per the agreement terms, constituting business auxiliary services. The dismissal was based on the appellants receiving commission for services without paying any franchise fee to the bank.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4103</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>