<?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 (11) TMI 834 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370491</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the services provided by the appellant did not fall under the proviso excluding brand name services from the exemption. Consequently, the appellant was deemed eligible for the Small Scale Service Provider (SSI) exemption. The impugned orders demanding service tax, interest, and penalties were set aside, and the appeals were allowed based on the finding that the appellant&#039;s services did not qualify as branded services under the relevant notification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2018 08:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=542515" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (11) TMI 834 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370491</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the services provided by the appellant did not fall under the proviso excluding brand name services from the exemption. Consequently, the appellant was deemed eligible for the Small Scale Service Provider (SSI) exemption. The impugned orders demanding service tax, interest, and penalties were set aside, and the appeals were allowed based on the finding that the appellant&#039;s services did not qualify as branded services under the relevant notification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370491</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>