<?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 (7) TMI 861 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235703</link>
    <description>The appellate tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, determining that the services provided did not qualify as &quot;Consulting Engineer&#039;s Service&quot; as the appellant lacked professional engineering qualifications. The tribunal classified the services as &quot;Intellectual Property Service,&quot; not taxable during the relevant period, setting aside the tax demand and allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Sep 2014 12:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=198113" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (7) TMI 861 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235703</link>
      <description>The appellate tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, determining that the services provided did not qualify as &quot;Consulting Engineer&#039;s Service&quot; as the appellant lacked professional engineering qualifications. The tribunal classified the services as &quot;Intellectual Property Service,&quot; not taxable during the relevant period, setting aside the tax demand and allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235703</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>