<?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 (12) TMI 1166 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352897</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeals by way of remand, emphasizing the need for a detailed examination to determine the appellants&#039; liability for Service Tax based on the actual execution of construction work by contractors and the application of the principle of unjust enrichment in collecting Service Tax from buyers. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Jan 2018 14:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=500988" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (12) TMI 1166 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352897</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeals by way of remand, emphasizing the need for a detailed examination to determine the appellants&#039; liability for Service Tax based on the actual execution of construction work by contractors and the application of the principle of unjust enrichment in collecting Service Tax from buyers. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352897</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>