<?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 (8) TMI 48 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235753</link>
    <description>The Tribunal, by majority decision, held that the appellant, a branch of a foreign airline in India, was liable to pay service tax on &quot;Online Database Access or Retrieval Service&quot; received from foreign-based CRS companies under the reverse charge mechanism. The Tribunal found that the appellant benefited directly from the services in India, rejecting the argument that the service was provided to the head office abroad. The extended period of limitation was deemed applicable due to the appellant&#039;s failure to register and disclose taxable services, leading to the imposition of penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. A difference of opinion between members led to the matter being referred for resolution.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Aug 2013 07:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=198163" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (8) TMI 48 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235753</link>
      <description>The Tribunal, by majority decision, held that the appellant, a branch of a foreign airline in India, was liable to pay service tax on &quot;Online Database Access or Retrieval Service&quot; received from foreign-based CRS companies under the reverse charge mechanism. The Tribunal found that the appellant benefited directly from the services in India, rejecting the argument that the service was provided to the head office abroad. The extended period of limitation was deemed applicable due to the appellant&#039;s failure to register and disclose taxable services, leading to the imposition of penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. A difference of opinion between members led to the matter being referred for resolution.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235753</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>