<?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 (12) TMI 406 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213039</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the appellants providing &quot;Event Management Services&quot; were liable to pay service tax on the entire value received from customers, not just on a part of the money received. The services were classified as &quot;Event Management Service,&quot; and the appellants were directed to pay tax accordingly. The Tribunal also ruled that the cost of materials used in providing the services should not be excluded under Notification 12/2003-ST. Additionally, the Tribunal allowed the invocation of the extended period for raising the demand due to non-disclosure of reimbursements. The appellants were required to make a pre-deposit for the admission of the appeal to challenge the duty demand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2013 10:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=186441" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (12) TMI 406 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213039</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the appellants providing &quot;Event Management Services&quot; were liable to pay service tax on the entire value received from customers, not just on a part of the money received. The services were classified as &quot;Event Management Service,&quot; and the appellants were directed to pay tax accordingly. The Tribunal also ruled that the cost of materials used in providing the services should not be excluded under Notification 12/2003-ST. Additionally, the Tribunal allowed the invocation of the extended period for raising the demand due to non-disclosure of reimbursements. The appellants were required to make a pre-deposit for the admission of the appeal to challenge the duty demand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213039</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>