<?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>2008 (5) TMI 44 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30246</link>
    <description>Rental income from hiring out barges, floating cranes and tugging facilities was not treated as consideration for port services under the Finance Act, 1994, because the facilities were let as equipment rather than provided as services connected with cargo or vessel handling. The permission and lease terms showed that the jetty and related infrastructure were primarily for the appellant&#039;s own use, while any third-party cargo handling required separate permission and charges to the port authority. The Tribunal also followed its earlier view that a licence to operate such facilities is not equivalent to authorisation to provide port services, and held that the income was not exigible to Service Tax.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Sep 2008 13:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=68903" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (5) TMI 44 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30246</link>
      <description>Rental income from hiring out barges, floating cranes and tugging facilities was not treated as consideration for port services under the Finance Act, 1994, because the facilities were let as equipment rather than provided as services connected with cargo or vessel handling. The permission and lease terms showed that the jetty and related infrastructure were primarily for the appellant&#039;s own use, while any third-party cargo handling required separate permission and charges to the port authority. The Tribunal also followed its earlier view that a licence to operate such facilities is not equivalent to authorisation to provide port services, and held that the income was not exigible to Service Tax.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30246</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>