<?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 (9) TMI 17 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=837</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the demand for Service Tax on the grounds of &#039;Consulting Engineer&#039;s Service.&#039; It was determined that the transfer of technical know-how should be classified under &#039;Intellectual Property Service&#039; instead. The Tribunal emphasized the distinction between the two services and concluded that the transfer of technical know-how falls under the category of &#039;Intellectual Property Service.&#039;</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Jul 2008 11:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=40271" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (9) TMI 17 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=837</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the demand for Service Tax on the grounds of &#039;Consulting Engineer&#039;s Service.&#039; It was determined that the transfer of technical know-how should be classified under &#039;Intellectual Property Service&#039; instead. The Tribunal emphasized the distinction between the two services and concluded that the transfer of technical know-how falls under the category of &#039;Intellectual Property Service.&#039;</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=837</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>