<?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>2008 (6) TMI 8 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30100</link>
    <description>The appeal involved a dispute over service tax for consulting engineering, real estate agent, and clearing and forwarding agent services. The Tribunal remanded the matter for re-evaluation by the adjudicating authority. The appellant&#039;s challenge to the demand for consulting engineering services was rejected, with the Tribunal finding they provided such services. Regarding real estate agent services, the Tribunal directed reconsideration due to procedural issues. The appellant&#039;s argument on being commission agents rather than C&amp;amp;F agents also required further review. Ultimately, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded for fresh consideration, allowing the appeal by remand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2014 14:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=68758" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (6) TMI 8 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30100</link>
      <description>The appeal involved a dispute over service tax for consulting engineering, real estate agent, and clearing and forwarding agent services. The Tribunal remanded the matter for re-evaluation by the adjudicating authority. The appellant&#039;s challenge to the demand for consulting engineering services was rejected, with the Tribunal finding they provided such services. Regarding real estate agent services, the Tribunal directed reconsideration due to procedural issues. The appellant&#039;s argument on being commission agents rather than C&amp;amp;F agents also required further review. Ultimately, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded for fresh consideration, allowing the appeal by remand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30100</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>