<?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>2000 (5) TMI 1094 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294306</link>
    <description>Brokerage recorded as inclusive of service tax had to be reduced by the tax element before computing further service tax, as the tax component could not be taxed again. The Tribunal also rejected the Revenue&#039;s objection on precedent, holding that an earlier Tribunal decision carries precedent value and is binding on parties and Benches. On that basis, the exclusion of the service tax element was upheld and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Apr 2021 18:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=640940" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (5) TMI 1094 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294306</link>
      <description>Brokerage recorded as inclusive of service tax had to be reduced by the tax element before computing further service tax, as the tax component could not be taxed again. The Tribunal also rejected the Revenue&#039;s objection on precedent, holding that an earlier Tribunal decision carries precedent value and is binding on parties and Benches. On that basis, the exclusion of the service tax element was upheld and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294306</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>