<?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 785 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264117</link>
    <description>Hiring transponder capacity from an overseas supplier was analysed as a possible taxable support service of business or commerce, but the Tribunal applied noscitur a sociis and held prima facie that the expression covers only supporting services linked to the main business, such as customer-related, transactional and office infrastructure services. On that approach, transponder hiring for uplinking did not fall within the category. The Tribunal also noted that, if tested as supply of tangible goods service, the requirement that the goods be physically present in India during use was not satisfied. The appellant therefore showed a strong prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Sep 2015 08:07:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=397650" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (9) TMI 785 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264117</link>
      <description>Hiring transponder capacity from an overseas supplier was analysed as a possible taxable support service of business or commerce, but the Tribunal applied noscitur a sociis and held prima facie that the expression covers only supporting services linked to the main business, such as customer-related, transactional and office infrastructure services. On that approach, transponder hiring for uplinking did not fall within the category. The Tribunal also noted that, if tested as supply of tangible goods service, the requirement that the goods be physically present in India during use was not satisfied. The appellant therefore showed a strong prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264117</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>