<?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 (3) TMI 1382 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377361</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, setting aside demands related to Management, Maintenance or Repair Service (MMRS) and consumables. The demand for job work charges was also set aside due to an exemption notification. However, demands related to Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) and interest were upheld. Penalties were set aside for demands not interfered with, citing confusion regarding taxability during the disputed period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Mar 2019 07:01:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=564472" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (3) TMI 1382 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377361</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, setting aside demands related to Management, Maintenance or Repair Service (MMRS) and consumables. The demand for job work charges was also set aside due to an exemption notification. However, demands related to Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) and interest were upheld. Penalties were set aside for demands not interfered with, citing confusion regarding taxability during the disputed period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377361</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>