<?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 (4) TMI 167 - CESTAT Bangalore</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30793</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the services provided by the appellant did not qualify as &quot;clearing and forwarding agents service,&quot; rejected the inclusion of &quot;Port fee&quot; in the taxable value, and deemed the extended period of limitation for issuing Show Cause Notices as unjustified. As a result, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=69447" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (4) TMI 167 - CESTAT Bangalore</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30793</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the services provided by the appellant did not qualify as &quot;clearing and forwarding agents service,&quot; rejected the inclusion of &quot;Port fee&quot; in the taxable value, and deemed the extended period of limitation for issuing Show Cause Notices as unjustified. As a result, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30793</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>