<?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 (4) TMI 572 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207413</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi ruled in favor of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, holding that the payment received for transferring technical specifications and knowhow for manufacturing a product was primarily for the transfer of knowhow and not for Consulting Engineer Services before 10.9.2004. The Tribunal found that the initial assistance provided by the appellant was incidental and not charged for, indicating that the service did not fall under the relevant entry. Consequently, the Tribunal waived the demands made in the impugned order, stayed the recovery of the disputed tax amount, and allowed the appeal to proceed without pre-deposit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Sep 2011 15:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=180892" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (4) TMI 572 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207413</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi ruled in favor of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, holding that the payment received for transferring technical specifications and knowhow for manufacturing a product was primarily for the transfer of knowhow and not for Consulting Engineer Services before 10.9.2004. The Tribunal found that the initial assistance provided by the appellant was incidental and not charged for, indicating that the service did not fall under the relevant entry. Consequently, the Tribunal waived the demands made in the impugned order, stayed the recovery of the disputed tax amount, and allowed the appeal to proceed without pre-deposit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207413</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>