<?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 (9) TMI 125 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398006</link>
    <description>The tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the revenue. It held that the lease rentals, classified as &#039;deemed sale&#039;, were not liable to service tax under the Finance Act, 1994. The tribunal affirmed the correct application of the extended period of limitation and abatement provisions by the adjudicating authority, emphasizing the distinction between taxing powers of the Union and states on sales and services.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Dec 2021 12:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=621412" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (9) TMI 125 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398006</link>
      <description>The tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the revenue. It held that the lease rentals, classified as &#039;deemed sale&#039;, were not liable to service tax under the Finance Act, 1994. The tribunal affirmed the correct application of the extended period of limitation and abatement provisions by the adjudicating authority, emphasizing the distinction between taxing powers of the Union and states on sales and services.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398006</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>