<?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>2016 (8) TMI 185 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330801</link>
    <description>The appellate tribunal upheld the Revenue&#039;s classification of the appellant&#039;s services as Rent-a-Cab Service rather than Tour Operators Service. The decision was based on the appellant&#039;s failure to provide evidence of conducting an actual tour, as required by law. The lack of proof led to the dismissal of the appellant&#039;s claim, and the appeal for refund was consequently denied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2017 12:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=437445" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (8) TMI 185 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330801</link>
      <description>The appellate tribunal upheld the Revenue&#039;s classification of the appellant&#039;s services as Rent-a-Cab Service rather than Tour Operators Service. The decision was based on the appellant&#039;s failure to provide evidence of conducting an actual tour, as required by law. The lack of proof led to the dismissal of the appellant&#039;s claim, and the appeal for refund was consequently denied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330801</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>