<?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 (8) TMI 890 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250940</link>
    <description>The appellant provided Business Auxiliary Services (BAS) to an overseas entity, leading to a dispute over service tax liability. The Revenue argued the services promoted the overseas entity&#039;s products in India, justifying tax imposition. However, the appellant contended that Rule 3(3) of the Export of Service Rules, 2005, and receiving payment in foreign exchange exempted them from tax. The lower appellate authority favored the appellant, granting exemption for services post a specific date. Citing a precedent from a Larger Bench, the appeal was resolved without a pre-deposit, leading to the quashing of the tax demand order, with no costs for either party.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Aug 2014 10:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=364137" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (8) TMI 890 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250940</link>
      <description>The appellant provided Business Auxiliary Services (BAS) to an overseas entity, leading to a dispute over service tax liability. The Revenue argued the services promoted the overseas entity&#039;s products in India, justifying tax imposition. However, the appellant contended that Rule 3(3) of the Export of Service Rules, 2005, and receiving payment in foreign exchange exempted them from tax. The lower appellate authority favored the appellant, granting exemption for services post a specific date. Citing a precedent from a Larger Bench, the appeal was resolved without a pre-deposit, leading to the quashing of the tax demand order, with no costs for either party.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250940</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>