<?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 (8) TMI 676 - CESTAT, DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210484</link>
    <description>The Tribunal relied on the Bombay High Court&#039;s precedent, affirmed by the Supreme Court, to determine that the appellants were not liable for service tax on services received from foreign agents before 18.4.2006. As the period in question preceded this date, the appellants were absolved of any service tax liability related to the services provided by their foreign agents in exporting excisable goods. The Tribunal set aside the lower authorities&#039; decision and allowed the appeals with consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 21:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=183918" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (8) TMI 676 - CESTAT, DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210484</link>
      <description>The Tribunal relied on the Bombay High Court&#039;s precedent, affirmed by the Supreme Court, to determine that the appellants were not liable for service tax on services received from foreign agents before 18.4.2006. As the period in question preceded this date, the appellants were absolved of any service tax liability related to the services provided by their foreign agents in exporting excisable goods. The Tribunal set aside the lower authorities&#039; decision and allowed the appeals with consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210484</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>