<?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 (9) TMI 284 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33795</link>
    <description>For stay purposes, the Tribunal examined whether service tax was prima facie leviable on reimbursable expenses when deciding pre-deposit and recovery relief. It noted that earlier Tribunal rulings had treated reimbursable expenses as outside service tax and that no legal basis was shown to distinguish those decisions. On that prima facie view, the issue was treated as covered in the assessee&#039;s favour for the limited purpose of the stay application, and waiver of pre-deposit with stay of recovery was granted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=72423" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (9) TMI 284 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33795</link>
      <description>For stay purposes, the Tribunal examined whether service tax was prima facie leviable on reimbursable expenses when deciding pre-deposit and recovery relief. It noted that earlier Tribunal rulings had treated reimbursable expenses as outside service tax and that no legal basis was shown to distinguish those decisions. On that prima facie view, the issue was treated as covered in the assessee&#039;s favour for the limited purpose of the stay application, and waiver of pre-deposit with stay of recovery was granted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33795</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>