<?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>2018 (2) TMI 226 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354805</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, an Authorized Service Station, in a tax liability dispute over the sale of extended warranty coupons. The Tribunal found that the consideration received for the extended warranty coupons should not be taxed as part of the appellant&#039;s taxable activity under the category of &quot;Authorized Service Station&quot; of Motor Cars. It concluded that selling extended warranty coupons did not fall within the scope of services provided by authorized service stations. As a result, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the original order, determining that the appellant&#039;s activity did not warrant tax liability under the authorized service station category.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2018 17:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=507571" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (2) TMI 226 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354805</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, an Authorized Service Station, in a tax liability dispute over the sale of extended warranty coupons. The Tribunal found that the consideration received for the extended warranty coupons should not be taxed as part of the appellant&#039;s taxable activity under the category of &quot;Authorized Service Station&quot; of Motor Cars. It concluded that selling extended warranty coupons did not fall within the scope of services provided by authorized service stations. As a result, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the original order, determining that the appellant&#039;s activity did not warrant tax liability under the authorized service station category.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354805</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>