<?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 (11) TMI 382 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388133</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT HYDERABAD ruled in favor of the respondent, M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, in a case concerning the classification of services under dealership agreements. The Tribunal held that the license fee collected from dealers for facilities provided falls under the category of supply of tangible goods services rather than business support services. It rejected the department&#039;s attempt to reclassify the services and upheld the respondent&#039;s tax classification under supply of tangible goods services. The Tribunal also dismissed the department&#039;s appeal regarding the invocation of the extended period of limitation, emphasizing consistency and interpretational issues in the decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2020 15:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=593477" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (11) TMI 382 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388133</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT HYDERABAD ruled in favor of the respondent, M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, in a case concerning the classification of services under dealership agreements. The Tribunal held that the license fee collected from dealers for facilities provided falls under the category of supply of tangible goods services rather than business support services. It rejected the department&#039;s attempt to reclassify the services and upheld the respondent&#039;s tax classification under supply of tangible goods services. The Tribunal also dismissed the department&#039;s appeal regarding the invocation of the extended period of limitation, emphasizing consistency and interpretational issues in the decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388133</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>