<?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 (6) TMI 330 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361503</link>
    <description>Service tax under reverse charge on manpower supply services was held unsustainable where the service providers had already discharged the entire tax liability, and Revenue did not rebut that finding. The demand would have resulted in double taxation, so the appellate order deleting the demand was upheld. As the basic demand failed, interest and penalty under Section 78 could not survive. However, the procedural penalty under Section 77 remained intact.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Jun 2018 08:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=522801" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (6) TMI 330 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361503</link>
      <description>Service tax under reverse charge on manpower supply services was held unsustainable where the service providers had already discharged the entire tax liability, and Revenue did not rebut that finding. The demand would have resulted in double taxation, so the appellate order deleting the demand was upheld. As the basic demand failed, interest and penalty under Section 78 could not survive. However, the procedural penalty under Section 77 remained intact.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361503</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>