<?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 (6) TMI 819 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344548</link>
    <description>The tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal and allowed the appellant&#039;s appeal, setting aside the demand for service tax against the appellant. The tribunal held that the royalty payments did not fall under Intellectual Property Rights services as the rights were not registered in India, making them exempt from service tax. Additionally, the extended period of limitation was deemed inapplicable as the agreement predated the introduction of the levy on IPR services.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Nov 2017 12:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=473574" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (6) TMI 819 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344548</link>
      <description>The tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal and allowed the appellant&#039;s appeal, setting aside the demand for service tax against the appellant. The tribunal held that the royalty payments did not fall under Intellectual Property Rights services as the rights were not registered in India, making them exempt from service tax. Additionally, the extended period of limitation was deemed inapplicable as the agreement predated the introduction of the levy on IPR services.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344548</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>