<?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 (2) TMI 76 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4399</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI ruled in favor of the appellants in a case concerning the demand of service tax and penalties for leasing out machinery under the category of &quot;banking and financial services&quot; for the period 2004-05. The Tribunal interpreted the term &quot;body corporate&quot; in the definition of &quot;banking and financial services&quot; under the Finance Act, applying the ejusdem generis principle. As the appellants did not fall under the interpretation of &quot;body corporate&quot; as a non-banking financial company, they were not liable for the service tax and penalties, leading to a waiver of predeposit and a stay of recovery for the amounts in question.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=43742" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (2) TMI 76 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4399</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI ruled in favor of the appellants in a case concerning the demand of service tax and penalties for leasing out machinery under the category of &quot;banking and financial services&quot; for the period 2004-05. The Tribunal interpreted the term &quot;body corporate&quot; in the definition of &quot;banking and financial services&quot; under the Finance Act, applying the ejusdem generis principle. As the appellants did not fall under the interpretation of &quot;body corporate&quot; as a non-banking financial company, they were not liable for the service tax and penalties, leading to a waiver of predeposit and a stay of recovery for the amounts in question.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4399</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>