<?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 1197 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439623</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner&#039;s decision, ruling in favor of the respondent and dismissing the department&#039;s appeal. It was held that the corporate guarantee commission received did not fall under Banking and Other Financial Services (BOFS) for service tax, the show cause notice was deemed vague, and the extended period of limitation could not be invoked due to uncertainty regarding the taxability of the services.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Jun 2023 09:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=717972" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (6) TMI 1197 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439623</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner&#039;s decision, ruling in favor of the respondent and dismissing the department&#039;s appeal. It was held that the corporate guarantee commission received did not fall under Banking and Other Financial Services (BOFS) for service tax, the show cause notice was deemed vague, and the extended period of limitation could not be invoked due to uncertainty regarding the taxability of the services.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439623</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>