<?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 (7) TMI 27 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362719</link>
    <description>The tribunal upheld the classification of the appellants&#039; activities as &#039;Business Auxiliary Service,&#039; set aside the penalties imposed under Sections 76, 77 &amp;amp; 78 of the Act, and did not address the extended period issue for issuing the second show cause notice due to the primary decision on the nature of the services provided by the appellants.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Jul 2018 11:02:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=525387" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (7) TMI 27 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362719</link>
      <description>The tribunal upheld the classification of the appellants&#039; activities as &#039;Business Auxiliary Service,&#039; set aside the penalties imposed under Sections 76, 77 &amp;amp; 78 of the Act, and did not address the extended period issue for issuing the second show cause notice due to the primary decision on the nature of the services provided by the appellants.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362719</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>