<?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 (9) TMI 1658 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367922</link>
    <description>For service tax on services rendered in March 2008, the applicable rate was held to be the rate in force when the taxable service was actually rendered, not the later rate in force when payment was realised. The Tribunal followed its earlier view on the same issue and rejected the department&#039;s reliance on a subsequent change in the point of taxation for the relevant period. On that basis, the 4% rate was held inapplicable, and the assessee was treated as having correctly discharged service tax at the earlier rate.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Sep 2018 09:12:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=536270" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (9) TMI 1658 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367922</link>
      <description>For service tax on services rendered in March 2008, the applicable rate was held to be the rate in force when the taxable service was actually rendered, not the later rate in force when payment was realised. The Tribunal followed its earlier view on the same issue and rejected the department&#039;s reliance on a subsequent change in the point of taxation for the relevant period. On that basis, the 4% rate was held inapplicable, and the assessee was treated as having correctly discharged service tax at the earlier rate.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367922</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>