<?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>2015 (9) TMI 103 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263435</link>
    <description>Service tax under Works Contract Service was payable at the rate prevailing when the service was rendered, because rendition of service is the taxable event. Where the services were completed before 1.3.2008, the later higher rate could not be applied merely because payment was received after that date. The Revenue&#039;s reliance on a contrary circular was rejected as inconsistent with the law declared by the Supreme Court, so liability remained governed by the earlier rate in force on the date of performance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 May 2016 11:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=395540" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (9) TMI 103 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263435</link>
      <description>Service tax under Works Contract Service was payable at the rate prevailing when the service was rendered, because rendition of service is the taxable event. Where the services were completed before 1.3.2008, the later higher rate could not be applied merely because payment was received after that date. The Revenue&#039;s reliance on a contrary circular was rejected as inconsistent with the law declared by the Supreme Court, so liability remained governed by the earlier rate in force on the date of performance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263435</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>