<?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 131 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4221</link>
    <description>The Tribunal rejected the Department&#039;s appeals, upholding the lower Appellate Authority&#039;s decision that the respondents&#039; activities were not subject to tax under cargo handling services. The Tribunal found that the Department&#039;s appeals were validly authorized and proceeded to decide on the merits. Despite the Department&#039;s arguments, the Tribunal followed the precedent set by a previous case and the absence of contrary decisions from higher courts, ultimately ruling in favor of the respondents.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Mar 2014 17:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=43567" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (1) TMI 131 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4221</link>
      <description>The Tribunal rejected the Department&#039;s appeals, upholding the lower Appellate Authority&#039;s decision that the respondents&#039; activities were not subject to tax under cargo handling services. The Tribunal found that the Department&#039;s appeals were validly authorized and proceeded to decide on the merits. Despite the Department&#039;s arguments, the Tribunal followed the precedent set by a previous case and the absence of contrary decisions from higher courts, ultimately ruling in favor of the respondents.</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=4221</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>