<?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 (7) TMI 192 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4372</link>
    <description>A claimed exemption from service tax on motor insurance business was held inapplicable because no specific Central Government circular or notification granted relief under the Finance Act, 1994, and the exemption under the General Insurance Business (Nationalization) Act, 1972 did not defeat the tax levy. The service tax demand was treated as within jurisdiction because the activity fell within the taxable service regime and no valid exemption or clarification was obtained. Invocation of the extended limitation period under section 73 was upheld because the relevant details had not been disclosed, so the limitation plea failed and the demand was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Mar 2014 18:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=43715" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (7) TMI 192 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4372</link>
      <description>A claimed exemption from service tax on motor insurance business was held inapplicable because no specific Central Government circular or notification granted relief under the Finance Act, 1994, and the exemption under the General Insurance Business (Nationalization) Act, 1972 did not defeat the tax levy. The service tax demand was treated as within jurisdiction because the activity fell within the taxable service regime and no valid exemption or clarification was obtained. Invocation of the extended limitation period under section 73 was upheld because the relevant details had not been disclosed, so the limitation plea failed and the demand was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4372</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>