<?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 (4) TMI 417 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358306</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the sale of prospectus is not part of &#039;Commercial Training or Coaching Services,&#039; as it is solely for student screening and does not entitle students to coaching services. Since the sale of prospectus was not deemed a service rendered by the Appellant, the demand and penalties were set aside. The appeals were allowed, emphasizing the importance of accurately categorizing services for tax purposes and providing substantial evidence in tax disputes.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Apr 2018 08:22:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=516444" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (4) TMI 417 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358306</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the sale of prospectus is not part of &#039;Commercial Training or Coaching Services,&#039; as it is solely for student screening and does not entitle students to coaching services. Since the sale of prospectus was not deemed a service rendered by the Appellant, the demand and penalties were set aside. The appeals were allowed, emphasizing the importance of accurately categorizing services for tax purposes and providing substantial evidence in tax disputes.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358306</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>