<?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 (7) TMI 98 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2434</link>
    <description>The Tribunal granted the applicant&#039;s request to waive the pre-deposit of the remaining Service tax and penalty, as the amount already deposited was deemed sufficient for the appeal hearing. Regarding the classification issue, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the applicant, determining them to be a commission agent based on the clarification distinguishing consignment agents and commission agents. The applicant&#039;s sales process supported this classification, leading to the Tribunal allowing the stay petition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2008 08:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=41793" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (7) TMI 98 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2434</link>
      <description>The Tribunal granted the applicant&#039;s request to waive the pre-deposit of the remaining Service tax and penalty, as the amount already deposited was deemed sufficient for the appeal hearing. Regarding the classification issue, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the applicant, determining them to be a commission agent based on the clarification distinguishing consignment agents and commission agents. The applicant&#039;s sales process supported this classification, leading to the Tribunal allowing the stay petition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2434</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>