<?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 (8) TMI 1103 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365631</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad ruled that the appellant, a police department providing security services, was not liable for service tax under Section 65(105) (w) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal considered past judgments where police departments were held exempt from service tax on security services, leading to the conclusion that the appellant&#039;s services were also exempt. Consequently, the demand for service tax was deemed unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside, allowing the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Aug 2018 07:00:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=531468" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (8) TMI 1103 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365631</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad ruled that the appellant, a police department providing security services, was not liable for service tax under Section 65(105) (w) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal considered past judgments where police departments were held exempt from service tax on security services, leading to the conclusion that the appellant&#039;s services were also exempt. Consequently, the demand for service tax was deemed unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside, allowing the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365631</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>