<?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 403 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359839</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the respondents, Octroi Agents, stating that their services in ensuring compliance with Octroi duty payment do not fall under Business Auxiliary Service and are not subject to service tax liability. The decision was based on previous judgments establishing that such services do not attract service tax under Business Auxiliary Service, providing a consistent interpretation of the law regarding the tax liability of Octroi Agents in similar cases.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 May 2018 08:41:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=519208" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (5) TMI 403 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359839</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the respondents, Octroi Agents, stating that their services in ensuring compliance with Octroi duty payment do not fall under Business Auxiliary Service and are not subject to service tax liability. The decision was based on previous judgments establishing that such services do not attract service tax under Business Auxiliary Service, providing a consistent interpretation of the law regarding the tax liability of Octroi Agents in similar cases.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359839</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>