<?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>2009 (11) TMI 241 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76395</link>
    <description>Service tax on intellectual property service received from outside India for the pre-1-1-2005 period was held not payable, because the issue was treated as covered by binding precedent of the Bombay High Court and the Tribunal&#039;s Larger Bench, which had ruled that liability could not be sustained for the relevant period prior to 18-4-2006. On that basis, the Revenue&#039;s appeal was rejected and the dispute was disposed of in line with the existing authorities.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=114608" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (11) TMI 241 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76395</link>
      <description>Service tax on intellectual property service received from outside India for the pre-1-1-2005 period was held not payable, because the issue was treated as covered by binding precedent of the Bombay High Court and the Tribunal&#039;s Larger Bench, which had ruled that liability could not be sustained for the relevant period prior to 18-4-2006. On that basis, the Revenue&#039;s appeal was rejected and the dispute was disposed of in line with the existing authorities.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76395</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>