<?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 (5) TMI 365 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233780</link>
    <description>Where service tax had already been discharged by BSNL on the full face value of SIM cards and recharge coupons, a second levy on the distributor under business auxiliary service or business support service was not justified. The Tribunal relied on its earlier ruling on similar facts and held that duplication of tax on the same transaction value was unsustainable. The demand against the distributor was therefore set aside and the Revenue&#039;s appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2015 11:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=196194" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (5) TMI 365 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233780</link>
      <description>Where service tax had already been discharged by BSNL on the full face value of SIM cards and recharge coupons, a second levy on the distributor under business auxiliary service or business support service was not justified. The Tribunal relied on its earlier ruling on similar facts and held that duplication of tax on the same transaction value was unsustainable. The demand against the distributor was therefore set aside and the Revenue&#039;s appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233780</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>