<?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>2017 (3) TMI 1367 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340864</link>
    <description>Courses leading to degrees recognised as equivalent in India were held outside the taxable category of commercial training or coaching centre because the exclusion applies where the qualification is recognised by law, even if the institute itself does not award the degree. Business English and personality development courses were also treated as falling within vocational training, as the material showed a direct link to employability and skill enhancement, so the demand on those courses was unsustainable. The majority further held that the extended limitation period could not be invoked for want of proof of wilful suppression with intent to evade, and the service tax demand was set aside in full.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Nov 2017 10:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=463224" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 1367 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340864</link>
      <description>Courses leading to degrees recognised as equivalent in India were held outside the taxable category of commercial training or coaching centre because the exclusion applies where the qualification is recognised by law, even if the institute itself does not award the degree. Business English and personality development courses were also treated as falling within vocational training, as the material showed a direct link to employability and skill enhancement, so the demand on those courses was unsustainable. The majority further held that the extended limitation period could not be invoked for want of proof of wilful suppression with intent to evade, and the service tax demand was set aside in full.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340864</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>