<?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 467 - CESTAT, ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355046</link>
    <description>Services rendered to financial institutions were treated as Business Auxiliary Service and thus taxable under that category, but they were not treated as branded services because the service provider was serving the institutions themselves and was not using their brand. The exemption under Notification No. 06/2005-ST was therefore held available, and the matter was remanded for grant of the exemption and re-determination of service tax liability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Feb 2018 08:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=508213" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (2) TMI 467 - CESTAT, ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355046</link>
      <description>Services rendered to financial institutions were treated as Business Auxiliary Service and thus taxable under that category, but they were not treated as branded services because the service provider was serving the institutions themselves and was not using their brand. The exemption under Notification No. 06/2005-ST was therefore held available, and the matter was remanded for grant of the exemption and re-determination of service tax liability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355046</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>