<?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>2005 (2) TMI 4 - CESTAT (CHENNAI)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238</link>
    <description>Technology transfer, where coupled with consideration for the transfer, was treated as distinct from consulting engineering services. On the facts and the contractual obligations between the parties, the appellate authority&#039;s view that the arrangement was one of technology transfer was accepted. As a result, the activity was held not to fall within consulting engineering services, and the duty demand and penalty were found unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 13 Apr 2008 10:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=39702" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (2) TMI 4 - CESTAT (CHENNAI)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238</link>
      <description>Technology transfer, where coupled with consideration for the transfer, was treated as distinct from consulting engineering services. On the facts and the contractual obligations between the parties, the appellate authority&#039;s view that the arrangement was one of technology transfer was accepted. As a result, the activity was held not to fall within consulting engineering services, and the duty demand and penalty were found unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>