<?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 (4) TMI 39 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4186</link>
    <description>Hire-purchase finance was examined separately from a hire-purchase agreement, and the Tribunal&#039;s distinction was upheld on review of the impugned judgment. On that basis, the transaction was found not to attract service tax. The operative outcome was that service tax was held not leviable on hire-purchase finance, and the appeal was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 08 Nov 2008 11:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=43532" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (4) TMI 39 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4186</link>
      <description>Hire-purchase finance was examined separately from a hire-purchase agreement, and the Tribunal&#039;s distinction was upheld on review of the impugned judgment. On that basis, the transaction was found not to attract service tax. The operative outcome was that service tax was held not leviable on hire-purchase finance, and the appeal was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4186</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>