<?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 (11) TMI 487 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334469</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the decision confirming the liability of a partnership firm for service tax on transport services from 2005 to 2009. The appellant&#039;s argument regarding the abatement on taxable value and imposition of penalty was not accepted, with the Tribunal supporting the imposition of penalties and invoking the extended period for demand due to clarity on the liability for service tax. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the liability of the appellant for service tax on the transportation services.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Nov 2016 22:48:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=447669" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (11) TMI 487 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334469</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the decision confirming the liability of a partnership firm for service tax on transport services from 2005 to 2009. The appellant&#039;s argument regarding the abatement on taxable value and imposition of penalty was not accepted, with the Tribunal supporting the imposition of penalties and invoking the extended period for demand due to clarity on the liability for service tax. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the liability of the appellant for service tax on the transportation services.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334469</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>