<?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 (10) TMI 1288 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198833</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the appellant was not liable to pay service tax under the Business Auxiliary Service category as the main service provider had already paid service tax on the full amount received, including the commission paid to the appellant. Therefore, the appellant was not subject to further liability for service tax. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside, along with the disposal of the miscellaneous application.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Feb 2018 07:28:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=508374" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (10) TMI 1288 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198833</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the appellant was not liable to pay service tax under the Business Auxiliary Service category as the main service provider had already paid service tax on the full amount received, including the commission paid to the appellant. Therefore, the appellant was not subject to further liability for service tax. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside, along with the disposal of the miscellaneous application.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198833</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>