<?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 263 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362955</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the demand under Business Auxiliary Service and classifying the activity under Management, Maintenance, or Repair Service. The Commissioner (Appeals) exceeded the scope of the show cause notice by confirming the demand under a different service category, leading to the decision in favor of the appellants.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Jul 2018 07:52:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=525877" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (7) TMI 263 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362955</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the demand under Business Auxiliary Service and classifying the activity under Management, Maintenance, or Repair Service. The Commissioner (Appeals) exceeded the scope of the show cause notice by confirming the demand under a different service category, leading to the decision in favor of the appellants.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362955</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>