<?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 (11) TMI 163 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33873</link>
    <description>Service tax as a tour operator depended on whether the buses answered the statutory definition of a tourist vehicle, not merely on possession of a contract carriage permit. The Finance Act entry was read with the Motor Vehicles Act and the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, so the levy applied only if the vehicle satisfied the prescribed tourist vehicle specifications. On the stated facts, there was no finding that the buses met those requirements, and the demand could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Jul 2009 17:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=72501" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (11) TMI 163 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33873</link>
      <description>Service tax as a tour operator depended on whether the buses answered the statutory definition of a tourist vehicle, not merely on possession of a contract carriage permit. The Finance Act entry was read with the Motor Vehicles Act and the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, so the levy applied only if the vehicle satisfied the prescribed tourist vehicle specifications. On the stated facts, there was no finding that the buses met those requirements, and the demand could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33873</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>