<?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 (8) TMI 30 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=812</link>
    <description>Restoring old and used cylinders by refilling paper, cotton felt, or rubber to bring them back to workable condition was treated as maintenance or repair service. On that basis, the service tax paid on the premise that the activity was outside that category was not refundable, because the refund claim depended on an incorrect characterisation of the work done. The activity was therefore covered by maintenance or repair service, and the refund claim was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 13 Apr 2008 18:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=40247" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (8) TMI 30 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=812</link>
      <description>Restoring old and used cylinders by refilling paper, cotton felt, or rubber to bring them back to workable condition was treated as maintenance or repair service. On that basis, the service tax paid on the premise that the activity was outside that category was not refundable, because the refund claim depended on an incorrect characterisation of the work done. The activity was therefore covered by maintenance or repair service, and the refund claim was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=812</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>