<?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>2006 (2) TMI 707 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288133</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, a foreign-based company, in a case concerning Service Tax demands categorized as &quot;Consulting Engineer&quot; services. The appellant successfully argued that they did not provide consulting engineering services as defined under the Act, leading to the demands of Service Tax being set aside. Additionally, the Tribunal found the show-cause notice lacked jurisdiction post-rule amendment, supported by a CBEC circular exempting services provided outside India&#039;s territorial waters from service tax. The appellant&#039;s non-resident status and the absence of direct consulting engineering services further contributed to the Tribunal&#039;s decision in favor of the appellant, ultimately resulting in the penalty being set aside as well.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 May 2020 10:54:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=613381" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (2) TMI 707 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288133</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, a foreign-based company, in a case concerning Service Tax demands categorized as &quot;Consulting Engineer&quot; services. The appellant successfully argued that they did not provide consulting engineering services as defined under the Act, leading to the demands of Service Tax being set aside. Additionally, the Tribunal found the show-cause notice lacked jurisdiction post-rule amendment, supported by a CBEC circular exempting services provided outside India&#039;s territorial waters from service tax. The appellant&#039;s non-resident status and the absence of direct consulting engineering services further contributed to the Tribunal&#039;s decision in favor of the appellant, ultimately resulting in the penalty being set aside as well.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288133</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>