<?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 (12) TMI 556 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240891</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that renting charges for rooms booked for events should not be included in the value of Mandap Keeper Service for service tax calculation. The Tribunal found that renting hotel rooms for temporary stays, not for functions, does not align with the Mandap Keeper definition. Consequently, the appellant&#039;s appeal was allowed, and the invocation of the longer period of limitation was not sustained, leading to the appellant being granted consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Dec 2013 07:14:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=339127" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (12) TMI 556 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240891</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that renting charges for rooms booked for events should not be included in the value of Mandap Keeper Service for service tax calculation. The Tribunal found that renting hotel rooms for temporary stays, not for functions, does not align with the Mandap Keeper definition. Consequently, the appellant&#039;s appeal was allowed, and the invocation of the longer period of limitation was not sustained, leading to the appellant being granted consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240891</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>