<?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>2022 (7) TMI 824 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425269</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata ruled in favor of the Appellant in the case involving demands for service tax under reverse charge mechanism for Goods Transport Agency and Manpower Services. The Tribunal set aside demands beyond the normal limitation period, emphasizing the importance of considering admissibility of credit under RCM and the grounds for invoking extended periods. The Appellant successfully argued against the invocation of the extended period of limitation, citing lack of grounds for evasion.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Jul 2022 09:22:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=685505" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (7) TMI 824 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425269</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata ruled in favor of the Appellant in the case involving demands for service tax under reverse charge mechanism for Goods Transport Agency and Manpower Services. The Tribunal set aside demands beyond the normal limitation period, emphasizing the importance of considering admissibility of credit under RCM and the grounds for invoking extended periods. The Appellant successfully argued against the invocation of the extended period of limitation, citing lack of grounds for evasion.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425269</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>