<?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>2007 (3) TMI 76 - CESTAT,NEW DELHI,</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1627</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, ruled in favor of the appellant in a stay application concerning a service tax demand and penalty for operating an Executive Lounge at Delhi Airport. The Tribunal found that the services provided in the lounge, such as Cable TV, food, and telecom services, were not inherently airport services as they were not directly related to aircraft operations. It concluded that the appellant&#039;s operation of the Executive Lounge fell under its hospitality business, not airport services. The tax demand was deemed unjustified, and the stay application was allowed to prevent undue financial burden on the appellant pending appeal resolution.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2008 07:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=41025" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (3) TMI 76 - CESTAT,NEW DELHI,</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1627</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, ruled in favor of the appellant in a stay application concerning a service tax demand and penalty for operating an Executive Lounge at Delhi Airport. The Tribunal found that the services provided in the lounge, such as Cable TV, food, and telecom services, were not inherently airport services as they were not directly related to aircraft operations. It concluded that the appellant&#039;s operation of the Executive Lounge fell under its hospitality business, not airport services. The tax demand was deemed unjustified, and the stay application was allowed to prevent undue financial burden on the appellant pending appeal resolution.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1627</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>