<?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 (11) TMI 297 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350418</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellant, holding that the service in question was not liable to Service Tax under the reverse charge mechanism. The Tribunal emphasized that the transporting companies did not issue consignment notes as required, thus not meeting the criteria for classification as Goods Transport Agency services. The impugned order demanding Service Tax and imposing penalties was set aside, allowing the appeal of the Appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2018 14:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=494811" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (11) TMI 297 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350418</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellant, holding that the service in question was not liable to Service Tax under the reverse charge mechanism. The Tribunal emphasized that the transporting companies did not issue consignment notes as required, thus not meeting the criteria for classification as Goods Transport Agency services. The impugned order demanding Service Tax and imposing penalties was set aside, allowing the appeal of the Appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350418</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>