<?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 (9) TMI 143 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236710</link>
    <description>Services rendered for a UNICEF-linked event were treated as prima facie eligible for exemption under Notification No. 16/2002-ST, because the substance of the arrangement indicated services provided to UNICEF despite an intermediary being named in the contract. The text also notes that service tax should not be confirmed again on value already taxed in the hands of the recipient, as this would amount to double taxation. On limitation, the extended period was considered unjustified where the provider was registered, filing ST-3 returns, and there was no material showing suppression or mala fide intent. Demand and penalties were therefore not sustained at the prima facie stage.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=199117" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (9) TMI 143 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236710</link>
      <description>Services rendered for a UNICEF-linked event were treated as prima facie eligible for exemption under Notification No. 16/2002-ST, because the substance of the arrangement indicated services provided to UNICEF despite an intermediary being named in the contract. The text also notes that service tax should not be confirmed again on value already taxed in the hands of the recipient, as this would amount to double taxation. On limitation, the extended period was considered unjustified where the provider was registered, filing ST-3 returns, and there was no material showing suppression or mala fide intent. Demand and penalties were therefore not sustained at the prima facie stage.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236710</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>