<?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 (12) TMI 933 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336288</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the appellant was not liable to pay service tax under Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) as the show cause notice specifically mentioned Management Consultancy Service, and BAS was not alleged. The Commissioner&#039;s decision to demand service tax under BAS was deemed beyond the scope of the notice, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 18 Dec 2016 23:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=452068" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 933 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336288</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the appellant was not liable to pay service tax under Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) as the show cause notice specifically mentioned Management Consultancy Service, and BAS was not alleged. The Commissioner&#039;s decision to demand service tax under BAS was deemed beyond the scope of the notice, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336288</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>