<?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>2008 (5) TMI 715 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275692</link>
    <description>The MICR Cheque Processing Solution, made up of servers, software, document processor and stacker modules operating as an integrated data-processing setup, was treated as a computer system for exemption purposes. Maintenance or repair service relating to computers, computer systems or peripherals fell within the exemption, and the stacker was only one component of the document processor rather than a separate system. The unit could not be equated with an ATM, and the Board&#039;s clarification on ATMs did not justify denial of exemption for the entire integrated contract. The appellant was therefore entitled to the exemption for the relevant period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2018 18:04:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=538147" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (5) TMI 715 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275692</link>
      <description>The MICR Cheque Processing Solution, made up of servers, software, document processor and stacker modules operating as an integrated data-processing setup, was treated as a computer system for exemption purposes. Maintenance or repair service relating to computers, computer systems or peripherals fell within the exemption, and the stacker was only one component of the document processor rather than a separate system. The unit could not be equated with an ATM, and the Board&#039;s clarification on ATMs did not justify denial of exemption for the entire integrated contract. The appellant was therefore entitled to the exemption for the relevant period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275692</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>