<?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>2020 (1) TMI 187 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390574</link>
    <description>The appeal was allowed, with the court determining that the &#039;Branch Network Fee&#039; was not taxable under &#039;Business Support Services&#039; since the services agreed to be provided were not included in the definition before 01.07.2012. Furthermore, the extended period of limitation was deemed inapplicable as the Revenue was already aware of the relevant facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Aug 2024 18:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=599492" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (1) TMI 187 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390574</link>
      <description>The appeal was allowed, with the court determining that the &#039;Branch Network Fee&#039; was not taxable under &#039;Business Support Services&#039; since the services agreed to be provided were not included in the definition before 01.07.2012. Furthermore, the extended period of limitation was deemed inapplicable as the Revenue was already aware of the relevant facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390574</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>