<?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>2012 (7) TMI 777 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215279</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, a cooperative society of ex-servicemen providing security services, regarding the liability for service tax. They were found not liable for service tax before 18.04.06 but liable from that date onwards due to a change in the definition of security agency services. The penalty imposed on the appellant was set aside as it was deemed that their belief in being exempt from service tax was bona fide. The case was remanded for re-quantification of the demand for the specified period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2014 18:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=188667" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (7) TMI 777 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215279</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, a cooperative society of ex-servicemen providing security services, regarding the liability for service tax. They were found not liable for service tax before 18.04.06 but liable from that date onwards due to a change in the definition of security agency services. The penalty imposed on the appellant was set aside as it was deemed that their belief in being exempt from service tax was bona fide. The case was remanded for re-quantification of the demand for the specified period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215279</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>