<?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 (5) TMI 116 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359552</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD upheld the confirmation of demand of Service Tax and penalty imposition on M/s Cama Motors Pvt. Ltd. for providing taxable services categorized under &#039;Business Auxiliary Service&#039; to financial companies. Despite citing previous Tribunal decisions and emphasizing the nature of the appellant&#039;s activities, the Tribunal found the appellant&#039;s promotional services for financial loans constituted a substantial business promotion activity falling under &#039;Business Auxiliary Service.&#039; The appeal was dismissed as the appellant failed to provide substantial grounds or evidence to contest the penalties, affirming the impugned order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 May 2018 06:22:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=518708" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (5) TMI 116 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359552</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD upheld the confirmation of demand of Service Tax and penalty imposition on M/s Cama Motors Pvt. Ltd. for providing taxable services categorized under &#039;Business Auxiliary Service&#039; to financial companies. Despite citing previous Tribunal decisions and emphasizing the nature of the appellant&#039;s activities, the Tribunal found the appellant&#039;s promotional services for financial loans constituted a substantial business promotion activity falling under &#039;Business Auxiliary Service.&#039; The appeal was dismissed as the appellant failed to provide substantial grounds or evidence to contest the penalties, affirming the impugned order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359552</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>