<?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 (9) TMI 1004 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348247</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Original Authority&#039;s decision, confirming a service tax liability of Rs. 1,22,57,631/- on the appellant for event management services. The Tribunal ruled that the services provided fell under event management service as defined in the Act, rejecting the appellant&#039;s argument for a different classification. Additionally, the Tribunal held that reimbursable expenses should be included in the taxable value as the appellant lacked a clear arrangement for reimbursement. The Tribunal also dismissed the appellant&#039;s limitation argument, stating that failure to pay service tax on the gross value was not acceptable, ultimately upholding the service tax liability and dismissing the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2018 15:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=489835" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (9) TMI 1004 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348247</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Original Authority&#039;s decision, confirming a service tax liability of Rs. 1,22,57,631/- on the appellant for event management services. The Tribunal ruled that the services provided fell under event management service as defined in the Act, rejecting the appellant&#039;s argument for a different classification. Additionally, the Tribunal held that reimbursable expenses should be included in the taxable value as the appellant lacked a clear arrangement for reimbursement. The Tribunal also dismissed the appellant&#039;s limitation argument, stating that failure to pay service tax on the gross value was not acceptable, ultimately upholding the service tax liability and dismissing the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348247</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>