<?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>2013 (3) TMI 494 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221728</link>
    <description>Service tax on services received from a foreign-based provider was held not payable by the recipient for the period prior to 18.04.2006, because the prevailing legal position treated recipient liability as arising only from that date. The Tribunal noted that Board instructions to field formations reflected this position, so the demand sustained by the original authority could not be maintained for the earlier period. The department&#039;s challenge therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Aug 2016 10:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=195080" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (3) TMI 494 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221728</link>
      <description>Service tax on services received from a foreign-based provider was held not payable by the recipient for the period prior to 18.04.2006, because the prevailing legal position treated recipient liability as arising only from that date. The Tribunal noted that Board instructions to field formations reflected this position, so the demand sustained by the original authority could not be maintained for the earlier period. The department&#039;s challenge therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221728</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>