<?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 1439 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364131</link>
    <description>Commission on sale of mutual fund units was treated as exempt under Notification No. 13/2003-ST and not liable to service tax as Business Auxiliary Service. Collection of telephone bills was characterised as cash management service rather than Business Auxiliary Service, so no tax demand survived on that activity. Receipt and remittance of money from abroad was covered by binding precedent and likewise not taxable under the claimed head. Commission on sale of Government of India bonds was also held outside service tax, as the transaction related to government securities and earlier Tribunal view was followed. The demand was therefore not sustainable on any disputed service, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2018 08:49:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=527991" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (7) TMI 1439 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364131</link>
      <description>Commission on sale of mutual fund units was treated as exempt under Notification No. 13/2003-ST and not liable to service tax as Business Auxiliary Service. Collection of telephone bills was characterised as cash management service rather than Business Auxiliary Service, so no tax demand survived on that activity. Receipt and remittance of money from abroad was covered by binding precedent and likewise not taxable under the claimed head. Commission on sale of Government of India bonds was also held outside service tax, as the transaction related to government securities and earlier Tribunal view was followed. The demand was therefore not sustainable on any disputed service, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364131</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>