<?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>2004 (6) TMI 4 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152</link>
    <description>The Tribunal accepted the Revenue&#039;s appeal, setting aside the modified demand and penalty imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and reinstating the original demand under Section 68 of the Service Tax Act against the respondents. The Tribunal held that the respondents, an advertising agency, were liable to pay service tax for sub-letting advertising space to other companies, as it fell within the definition of &#039;Advertising Agency&#039; under Section 65(3) of the Finance Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Sep 2018 14:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=39616" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (6) TMI 4 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152</link>
      <description>The Tribunal accepted the Revenue&#039;s appeal, setting aside the modified demand and penalty imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and reinstating the original demand under Section 68 of the Service Tax Act against the respondents. The Tribunal held that the respondents, an advertising agency, were liable to pay service tax for sub-letting advertising space to other companies, as it fell within the definition of &#039;Advertising Agency&#039; under Section 65(3) of the Finance Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>