<?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 1468 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360904</link>
    <description>Canvassing advertisements for print media was treated as falling within Business Auxiliary Service under section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994, on the view that the activity amounted to promotion or marketing of a client&#039;s service and matched the department&#039;s circulars and earlier tribunal reasoning. However, the demand, interest and penalty were not sustained because the dispute arose in a period of interpretational uncertainty, the record did not establish suppression with intent to evade, and the prevailing circulars supported a contrary understanding. The appellate order setting aside the tax consequences was therefore upheld, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed on limitation and related grounds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Jul 2018 11:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=521565" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (5) TMI 1468 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360904</link>
      <description>Canvassing advertisements for print media was treated as falling within Business Auxiliary Service under section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994, on the view that the activity amounted to promotion or marketing of a client&#039;s service and matched the department&#039;s circulars and earlier tribunal reasoning. However, the demand, interest and penalty were not sustained because the dispute arose in a period of interpretational uncertainty, the record did not establish suppression with intent to evade, and the prevailing circulars supported a contrary understanding. The appellate order setting aside the tax consequences was therefore upheld, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed on limitation and related grounds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360904</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>