<?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>2019 (1) TMI 185 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373020</link>
    <description>Entry permit fee and toll collection within port premises were treated as taxable port services because they were linked to use of port infrastructure for movement of goods and persons. Sundry handling income remained taxable, while royalty for containers and income from the 11th and 12th cargo berth were held to be revenue share for permitting operations within the port and not consideration for port services, leading to deletion of those demands. Township income was set aside and remanded because the order below did not examine the nature of the receipts or the contractual arrangement. Cenvat credit was partly allowed for residential telephone lines, employee transport, and CISF-related transport, and penalty and extended period were not sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Jun 2019 11:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=551074" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (1) TMI 185 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373020</link>
      <description>Entry permit fee and toll collection within port premises were treated as taxable port services because they were linked to use of port infrastructure for movement of goods and persons. Sundry handling income remained taxable, while royalty for containers and income from the 11th and 12th cargo berth were held to be revenue share for permitting operations within the port and not consideration for port services, leading to deletion of those demands. Township income was set aside and remanded because the order below did not examine the nature of the receipts or the contractual arrangement. Cenvat credit was partly allowed for residential telephone lines, employee transport, and CISF-related transport, and penalty and extended period were not sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373020</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>