<?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 (5) TMI 234 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379506</link>
    <description>Service tax on software maintenance and repair from foreign providers could not be levied for the period before 01.06.2007 because computer software was brought within the relevant taxable entry only from that date, and the contrary departmental circular had already been quashed. International outbound roaming services from foreign telecom operators were not taxable as Business Support Services, as the activity fell within Telecommunication Services from 01.06.2007 and could not be reclassified under another head. For value-added content services, the tax demand was upheld, but penalties were removed because tax and interest had been paid before the show cause notice.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 May 2019 11:33:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=569516" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (5) TMI 234 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379506</link>
      <description>Service tax on software maintenance and repair from foreign providers could not be levied for the period before 01.06.2007 because computer software was brought within the relevant taxable entry only from that date, and the contrary departmental circular had already been quashed. International outbound roaming services from foreign telecom operators were not taxable as Business Support Services, as the activity fell within Telecommunication Services from 01.06.2007 and could not be reclassified under another head. For value-added content services, the tax demand was upheld, but penalties were removed because tax and interest had been paid before the show cause notice.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379506</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>