<?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 (3) TMI 13 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272201</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Revenue&#039;s appeal, determining that the respondent&#039;s services did fall under the definition of &quot;Tour Operator&quot; as per the law. The Order-in-Appeal was set aside, and the original demand for service tax was restored. The decision emphasized the importance of compliance with legal definitions and requirements in determining tax liability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 May 2016 12:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=418396" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (3) TMI 13 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272201</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Revenue&#039;s appeal, determining that the respondent&#039;s services did fall under the definition of &quot;Tour Operator&quot; as per the law. The Order-in-Appeal was set aside, and the original demand for service tax was restored. The decision emphasized the importance of compliance with legal definitions and requirements in determining tax liability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272201</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>