<?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 (12) TMI 1135 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352866</link>
    <description>The appellant, a Clearing &amp;amp; Forwarding Agent, was held liable to pay service tax on transport charges received as they were deemed an integral part of the services provided. The appellant successfully demonstrated the correct discharge of service tax liabilities for both Clearing &amp;amp; Forwarding Agent services and transportation services, with the Tribunal acknowledging separate billing and tax payments. Despite the recipient paying service tax on a reverse charge basis for transportation services, the demand for service tax from the appellant on the same transaction was deemed unjustified, leading to a ruling in favor of the appellant and granting them consequential benefits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Jan 2018 13:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=500957" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (12) TMI 1135 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352866</link>
      <description>The appellant, a Clearing &amp;amp; Forwarding Agent, was held liable to pay service tax on transport charges received as they were deemed an integral part of the services provided. The appellant successfully demonstrated the correct discharge of service tax liabilities for both Clearing &amp;amp; Forwarding Agent services and transportation services, with the Tribunal acknowledging separate billing and tax payments. Despite the recipient paying service tax on a reverse charge basis for transportation services, the demand for service tax from the appellant on the same transaction was deemed unjustified, leading to a ruling in favor of the appellant and granting them consequential benefits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352866</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>