<?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 (8) TMI 676 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331292</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside a service tax demand totaling &amp;amp;8377; 5,52,11,917/- and &amp;amp;8377; 5,10,826/- under Business Auxiliary Service, manpower recruitment or supply agency, and information technology software services. The demand under Business Auxiliary Service was rejected as the appellant failed to claim benefit under Export of Service Rules, 2005. The demand under manpower recruitment or supply agency was deemed unsustainable based on precedents. Additionally, the demand under information technology software services was quashed as it exceeded the scope of the show cause notice. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and provided consequential relief to the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Feb 2017 15:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=438600" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (8) TMI 676 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331292</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside a service tax demand totaling &amp;amp;8377; 5,52,11,917/- and &amp;amp;8377; 5,10,826/- under Business Auxiliary Service, manpower recruitment or supply agency, and information technology software services. The demand under Business Auxiliary Service was rejected as the appellant failed to claim benefit under Export of Service Rules, 2005. The demand under manpower recruitment or supply agency was deemed unsustainable based on precedents. Additionally, the demand under information technology software services was quashed as it exceeded the scope of the show cause notice. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and provided consequential relief to the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331292</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>