<?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>2006 (1) TMI 32 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=619</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled against the adjustment of Service tax paid to DOT under Rule 6(3) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. The respondents, providers of cellular phone services, were not entitled to the adjustment as they did not refund any amount to the recipients after paying the Service tax to DOT. The Tribunal upheld the demands raised within the limitation period, setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s decision allowing the adjustment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 13 Apr 2008 16:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=40064" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (1) TMI 32 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=619</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled against the adjustment of Service tax paid to DOT under Rule 6(3) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. The respondents, providers of cellular phone services, were not entitled to the adjustment as they did not refund any amount to the recipients after paying the Service tax to DOT. The Tribunal upheld the demands raised within the limitation period, setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s decision allowing the adjustment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=619</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>