<?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 851 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271059</link>
    <description>The Tribunal confirmed the service tax demand under clearing and forwarding agent service, applying the extended period for tax demand due to the appellant&#039;s lack of reasonable belief in non-liability. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant&#039;s role as a clearing and forwarding agent was clearly defined in the agreement, dismissing concerns about the reasoning in the impugned order. The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment was pronounced on 20.1.2016.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Oct 2016 12:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=414125" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (1) TMI 851 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271059</link>
      <description>The Tribunal confirmed the service tax demand under clearing and forwarding agent service, applying the extended period for tax demand due to the appellant&#039;s lack of reasonable belief in non-liability. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant&#039;s role as a clearing and forwarding agent was clearly defined in the agreement, dismissing concerns about the reasoning in the impugned order. The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment was pronounced on 20.1.2016.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271059</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>