<?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 68 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31219</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the applicant, who received a gross amount for providing security services, was liable to pay service tax. The applicant&#039;s argument that they should only pay tax on the commission received from customers was rejected. The Tribunal directed the applicant to deposit Rs. 12 lakhs for the appeal hearing, with the remaining service tax and penalties waived upon this deposit. Compliance reporting was scheduled for a specified date.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=69868" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (6) TMI 68 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31219</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the applicant, who received a gross amount for providing security services, was liable to pay service tax. The applicant&#039;s argument that they should only pay tax on the commission received from customers was rejected. The Tribunal directed the applicant to deposit Rs. 12 lakhs for the appeal hearing, with the remaining service tax and penalties waived upon this deposit. Compliance reporting was scheduled for a specified date.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31219</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>