<?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>2017 (5) TMI 465 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342727</link>
    <description>Hotel room rent recovered from corporate clients was not taxable as Mandap Keeper Service because the invoices and records showed only accommodation charges, with no separate levy for conference hall use. In the absence of any discernible amount attributable to mandap hiring, service tax could not be demanded on the entire room rent. The earlier assessment accepted on a 20% basis, having attained finality between the parties, could not be reopened in later proceedings. Penalty also did not survive, as the billing pattern and payment of other applicable taxes supported a bona fide tax position and the demand itself failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Nov 2017 15:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=468080" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (5) TMI 465 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342727</link>
      <description>Hotel room rent recovered from corporate clients was not taxable as Mandap Keeper Service because the invoices and records showed only accommodation charges, with no separate levy for conference hall use. In the absence of any discernible amount attributable to mandap hiring, service tax could not be demanded on the entire room rent. The earlier assessment accepted on a 20% basis, having attained finality between the parties, could not be reopened in later proceedings. Penalty also did not survive, as the billing pattern and payment of other applicable taxes supported a bona fide tax position and the demand itself failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342727</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>