<?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 733 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264065</link>
    <description>Leasing of tower space on microwave towers to cellular operators did not fall within Business Auxiliary Service because mere leasing was outside the statutory limbs of promotion, marketing, customer care, procurement or provision of service on behalf of a client, so that demand and related mandatory penalty were set aside. Leasing of dark fibre cables, however, satisfied the definition of leased circuit service as a dedicated link provided by a licensed telegraph authority to a subscriber, so the demand, interest and equal penalty were upheld. Suppression was also established from non-disclosure and failure to respond to requisitions, justifying the extended period and penalty for the sustained demand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Mar 2017 16:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=397517" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (9) TMI 733 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264065</link>
      <description>Leasing of tower space on microwave towers to cellular operators did not fall within Business Auxiliary Service because mere leasing was outside the statutory limbs of promotion, marketing, customer care, procurement or provision of service on behalf of a client, so that demand and related mandatory penalty were set aside. Leasing of dark fibre cables, however, satisfied the definition of leased circuit service as a dedicated link provided by a licensed telegraph authority to a subscriber, so the demand, interest and equal penalty were upheld. Suppression was also established from non-disclosure and failure to respond to requisitions, justifying the extended period and penalty for the sustained demand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264065</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>