<?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>2018 (9) TMI 131 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366395</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding them not liable to pay service tax under GTA Service as a recipient of services. The appellant, a proprietorship concern with less than 10 workers registered under the MP Shop and Establishment Act, was found not covered under the Factories Act, making Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of the Service Tax Rules inapplicable. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of correctly applying relevant legal provisions and set aside the order, relieving the appellant of the alleged liability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Sep 2018 07:29:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=533074" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (9) TMI 131 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366395</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding them not liable to pay service tax under GTA Service as a recipient of services. The appellant, a proprietorship concern with less than 10 workers registered under the MP Shop and Establishment Act, was found not covered under the Factories Act, making Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of the Service Tax Rules inapplicable. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of correctly applying relevant legal provisions and set aside the order, relieving the appellant of the alleged liability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366395</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>