<?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>2011 (1) TMI 110 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202837</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on an appellant engaged in the manufacture of hand tools for paying service tax on commission to an overseas agent. The Tribunal found no justification for the penalty and allowed the appeal with consequential relief. The issue of service tax liability before the introduction of section 66A in the Finance Act remained unresolved due to procedural reasons.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Apr 2011 08:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=176409" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (1) TMI 110 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202837</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on an appellant engaged in the manufacture of hand tools for paying service tax on commission to an overseas agent. The Tribunal found no justification for the penalty and allowed the appeal with consequential relief. The issue of service tax liability before the introduction of section 66A in the Finance Act remained unresolved due to procedural reasons.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202837</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>