<?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 (8) TMI 838 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346780</link>
    <description>Service tax under the broadcasting service entry was held inapplicable where the appellant only acquired distribution rights and passed them on to another Indian entity, while the foreign broadcaster transmitted signals directly to MSOs and cable operators. Liability depended on whether the appellant actually rendered or received the broadcasting service, and the appellant had no role in uplinking, downlinking, or technical receipt of the signals. As the facts were materially identical to an earlier Tribunal decision and no stay of that decision was shown, the demand on this count was set aside and the appeal was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Apr 2018 16:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=486473" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (8) TMI 838 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346780</link>
      <description>Service tax under the broadcasting service entry was held inapplicable where the appellant only acquired distribution rights and passed them on to another Indian entity, while the foreign broadcaster transmitted signals directly to MSOs and cable operators. Liability depended on whether the appellant actually rendered or received the broadcasting service, and the appellant had no role in uplinking, downlinking, or technical receipt of the signals. As the facts were materially identical to an earlier Tribunal decision and no stay of that decision was shown, the demand on this count was set aside and the appeal was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346780</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>