<?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 (8) TMI 538 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441559</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that weighment charges collected by the appellant did not constitute consideration for Business Auxiliary Service. The appellant&#039;s actions were for recovery purposes, not as remuneration for services. The Tribunal found no evidence of an agreement for services with customers and concluded that the weighment was not a service falling under Business Auxiliary Service. The appeal was allowed, and the demand for service tax was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Aug 2023 14:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=722329" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (8) TMI 538 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441559</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that weighment charges collected by the appellant did not constitute consideration for Business Auxiliary Service. The appellant&#039;s actions were for recovery purposes, not as remuneration for services. The Tribunal found no evidence of an agreement for services with customers and concluded that the weighment was not a service falling under Business Auxiliary Service. The appeal was allowed, and the demand for service tax was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441559</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>