<?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 (7) TMI 232 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32129</link>
    <description>Selecting, scheduling, producing and selling television time slots for consideration in relation to programme telecast falls within the statutory meaning of broadcasting and is taxable as a broadcasting service. The assessee&#039;s activity was therefore held taxable for the normal period, and the later statutory insertion did not take it outside the existing taxable entry. However, the extended period of limitation was not sustainable because the agreement and operating arrangements were already within departmental knowledge and there was no proved suppression with intent to evade tax. Penalties were also set aside, and the matter was remanded only for limited requantification of tax and cess for the normal period with interest.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Mar 2014 11:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=70771" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (7) TMI 232 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32129</link>
      <description>Selecting, scheduling, producing and selling television time slots for consideration in relation to programme telecast falls within the statutory meaning of broadcasting and is taxable as a broadcasting service. The assessee&#039;s activity was therefore held taxable for the normal period, and the later statutory insertion did not take it outside the existing taxable entry. However, the extended period of limitation was not sustainable because the agreement and operating arrangements were already within departmental knowledge and there was no proved suppression with intent to evade tax. Penalties were also set aside, and the matter was remanded only for limited requantification of tax and cess for the normal period with interest.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32129</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>