<?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>2024 (4) TMI 110 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=750929</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Appellant&#039;s appeal, finding no merit in their claim for SSI Exemption on services rendered under a franchise agreement. The Tribunal concluded that the exemption did not apply as the services were provided under another company&#039;s brand name. The extended period of limitation was deemed applicable, and the penalties were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Apr 2024 04:52:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=748998" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (4) TMI 110 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=750929</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Appellant&#039;s appeal, finding no merit in their claim for SSI Exemption on services rendered under a franchise agreement. The Tribunal concluded that the exemption did not apply as the services were provided under another company&#039;s brand name. The extended period of limitation was deemed applicable, and the penalties were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=750929</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>