<?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>2014 (1) TMI 820 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242603</link>
    <description>The Tribunal concluded that the appellants&#039; activity of operating the ropeway falls within the scope of &quot;tour operator&quot; as it involves the operation of tours, even without additional planning or organizing. The Tribunal clarified that despite state-level taxes, the Central Government can levy service tax on the operation of ropeways. The Tribunal held that when an order rejecting the refund claim is passed following due procedure, no separate Show Cause Notice is required. The matter was referred to a third member, who held that the appellants were not &quot;tour operators&quot; under the Finance Act, 1994, and thus not liable to pay service tax on the ropeway operation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Jan 2014 13:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=342997" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (1) TMI 820 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242603</link>
      <description>The Tribunal concluded that the appellants&#039; activity of operating the ropeway falls within the scope of &quot;tour operator&quot; as it involves the operation of tours, even without additional planning or organizing. The Tribunal clarified that despite state-level taxes, the Central Government can levy service tax on the operation of ropeways. The Tribunal held that when an order rejecting the refund claim is passed following due procedure, no separate Show Cause Notice is required. The matter was referred to a third member, who held that the appellants were not &quot;tour operators&quot; under the Finance Act, 1994, and thus not liable to pay service tax on the ropeway operation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242603</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>