<?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 1175 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347117</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the remittance for product registration in CIS countries did not attract service tax under the reverse charge mechanism. The decision emphasized the significance of consistent interpretation and application of tax laws based on factual evidence and previous rulings, ultimately providing relief to the appellant in this case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Nov 2017 14:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=487213" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (8) TMI 1175 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347117</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the remittance for product registration in CIS countries did not attract service tax under the reverse charge mechanism. The decision emphasized the significance of consistent interpretation and application of tax laws based on factual evidence and previous rulings, ultimately providing relief to the appellant in this case.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347117</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>