<?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 61 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4699</link>
    <description>An amount received under a franchise arrangement was examined for service tax liability as consideration for Business Auxiliary Service in the context of a stay application. The Bench treated the arrangement as a franchisee agreement and followed an earlier view that an identical agreement had already been characterised in the same way. On that basis, it granted waiver of pre-deposit and stayed recovery of the disputed amount until disposal of the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=44038" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (4) TMI 61 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4699</link>
      <description>An amount received under a franchise arrangement was examined for service tax liability as consideration for Business Auxiliary Service in the context of a stay application. The Bench treated the arrangement as a franchisee agreement and followed an earlier view that an identical agreement had already been characterised in the same way. On that basis, it granted waiver of pre-deposit and stayed recovery of the disputed amount until disposal of the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4699</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>