<?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>2026 (4) TMI 867 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789798</link>
    <description>Outbound international tour services provided by an Indian tour operator to Indian tourists were held taxable as &#039;Tour Operator Service&#039; for the pre-negative list period because the activity fell within the statutory levy under the Finance Act, 1994, and the Larger Bench view prevailed over contrary smaller Bench reasoning. On limitation and penalty, conflicting interpretations of law and the reference to a Larger Bench meant suppression was not established for invoking the extended period, and the same bona fide interpretational dispute made penalty unsustainable. The demand was therefore confined to the normal limitation period and penalty was deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Apr 2026 09:04:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=896832" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (4) TMI 867 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789798</link>
      <description>Outbound international tour services provided by an Indian tour operator to Indian tourists were held taxable as &#039;Tour Operator Service&#039; for the pre-negative list period because the activity fell within the statutory levy under the Finance Act, 1994, and the Larger Bench view prevailed over contrary smaller Bench reasoning. On limitation and penalty, conflicting interpretations of law and the reference to a Larger Bench meant suppression was not established for invoking the extended period, and the same bona fide interpretational dispute made penalty unsustainable. The demand was therefore confined to the normal limitation period and penalty was deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789798</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>