<?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 1459 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380731</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad ruled that sharing common staff between sister concerns of the Mehta Group of Companies engaged in cement manufacturing does not amount to providing a taxable service under &#039;manpower recruitment and supply agency service.&#039; The Tribunal, following established legal precedent, held that such arrangements do not attract service tax liability, emphasizing that service tax liability applies to commercial concerns primarily engaged in providing recruitment services, which was not the case here. The impugned order was set aside based on the legal position that sharing common staff does not constitute a taxable service.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 May 2019 07:39:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=572874" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (5) TMI 1459 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380731</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad ruled that sharing common staff between sister concerns of the Mehta Group of Companies engaged in cement manufacturing does not amount to providing a taxable service under &#039;manpower recruitment and supply agency service.&#039; The Tribunal, following established legal precedent, held that such arrangements do not attract service tax liability, emphasizing that service tax liability applies to commercial concerns primarily engaged in providing recruitment services, which was not the case here. The impugned order was set aside based on the legal position that sharing common staff does not constitute a taxable service.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380731</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>