<?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 (7) TMI 830 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383134</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the management fee and warranty fee charged by the appellant were not taxable under &#039;Franchise Service&#039;. The demand for service tax and penalties were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals filed by the appellant were allowed by the Tribunal on 16.07.2019.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2020 18:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=579786" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (7) TMI 830 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383134</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the management fee and warranty fee charged by the appellant were not taxable under &#039;Franchise Service&#039;. The demand for service tax and penalties were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals filed by the appellant were allowed by the Tribunal on 16.07.2019.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383134</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>