<?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>2023 (6) TMI 1195 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439621</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellant regarding the Air Freight Commission, Documentation Charges, Handling Charges, and Pickup Charges, stating that the demands confirmed were not sustainable. However, the Tribunal upheld the demand for Service Charges. The Appellant&#039;s argument on Income from GE Industrial Ltd. was accepted, and the demand was deemed unsustainable. Additionally, the Tribunal agreed with the Appellant on the issue of Limitation and Extended Period, finding the demands confirmed under the extended period not sustainable. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside certain demands, rejected the department&#039;s appeal, and modified the impugned order accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 26 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Jun 2023 15:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=717970" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (6) TMI 1195 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439621</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellant regarding the Air Freight Commission, Documentation Charges, Handling Charges, and Pickup Charges, stating that the demands confirmed were not sustainable. However, the Tribunal upheld the demand for Service Charges. The Appellant&#039;s argument on Income from GE Industrial Ltd. was accepted, and the demand was deemed unsustainable. Additionally, the Tribunal agreed with the Appellant on the issue of Limitation and Extended Period, finding the demands confirmed under the extended period not sustainable. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside certain demands, rejected the department&#039;s appeal, and modified the impugned order accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439621</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>