<?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 1234 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374069</link>
    <description>CESTAT Hyderabad held that scrolling SMS information on television screens for cellular operators did not amount to taxable broadcasting services under the Finance Act, 1994, because the activity was not shown to be a service by a broadcasting agency or organisation in relation to broadcasting. The demand was therefore unsustainable on merits. The tribunal also held that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked where the department had prior audit knowledge of the relevant facts through an audit objection, and the show cause notice was issued later on the same material. The demand was accordingly barred by limitation, and the assessee succeeded in full.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 Nov 2019 18:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=554836" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (1) TMI 1234 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374069</link>
      <description>CESTAT Hyderabad held that scrolling SMS information on television screens for cellular operators did not amount to taxable broadcasting services under the Finance Act, 1994, because the activity was not shown to be a service by a broadcasting agency or organisation in relation to broadcasting. The demand was therefore unsustainable on merits. The tribunal also held that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked where the department had prior audit knowledge of the relevant facts through an audit objection, and the show cause notice was issued later on the same material. The demand was accordingly barred by limitation, and the assessee succeeded in full.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374069</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>