<?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 (9) TMI 1111 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332850</link>
    <description>The appeal by the Revenue against the liability of the respondent for service tax on income from leasing machines categorized as &quot;banking and financial services&quot; was dismissed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the leasing activity did not meet the criteria of financial leasing services as defined under the Finance Act, 1994. It was established that the respondent, as a body corporate engaged in manufacturing activities, did not fall under the definition of a banking company or financial institution for service tax purposes. The decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed on 30.08.2016.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Aug 2017 11:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=442966" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (9) TMI 1111 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332850</link>
      <description>The appeal by the Revenue against the liability of the respondent for service tax on income from leasing machines categorized as &quot;banking and financial services&quot; was dismissed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the leasing activity did not meet the criteria of financial leasing services as defined under the Finance Act, 1994. It was established that the respondent, as a body corporate engaged in manufacturing activities, did not fall under the definition of a banking company or financial institution for service tax purposes. The decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed on 30.08.2016.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332850</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>