<?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>2021 (11) TMI 600 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414819</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled that the appellant did not provide a &#039;declared service&#039; under section 66E(e) of the Finance Act. The retained amounts were not considered as consideration for rendering services, leading to the overturning of the previous decision. The order in question was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Nov 2021 07:06:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=661403" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (11) TMI 600 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414819</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled that the appellant did not provide a &#039;declared service&#039; under section 66E(e) of the Finance Act. The retained amounts were not considered as consideration for rendering services, leading to the overturning of the previous decision. The order in question was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414819</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>