<?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>2016 (1) TMI 821 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271029</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the demand for technology transfer fee and excess CENVAT credit utilization, finding them unsustainable. The demand for R&amp;amp;D cess was deemed time-barred due to the non-invocable extended period. The appellant&#039;s deduction of R&amp;amp;D cess from brand fee service tax was disallowed, upholding the demand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Jan 2016 23:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=414046" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (1) TMI 821 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271029</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the demand for technology transfer fee and excess CENVAT credit utilization, finding them unsustainable. The demand for R&amp;amp;D cess was deemed time-barred due to the non-invocable extended period. The appellant&#039;s deduction of R&amp;amp;D cess from brand fee service tax was disallowed, upholding the demand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271029</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>