<?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 (10) TMI 25 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31351</link>
    <description>Consulting engineering service received from outside India by a provider with no office in India was held taxable only from 1.1.2005 under Notification No. 36/2004. For the pre-1.1.2005 period, the recipient could not be fastened with service tax liability because the service was not brought into the tax net for that earlier period. The contrary reliance on the Kerala High Court view was not accepted for determining liability here, and the demands were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Apr 2009 08:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=69999" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (10) TMI 25 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31351</link>
      <description>Consulting engineering service received from outside India by a provider with no office in India was held taxable only from 1.1.2005 under Notification No. 36/2004. For the pre-1.1.2005 period, the recipient could not be fastened with service tax liability because the service was not brought into the tax net for that earlier period. The contrary reliance on the Kerala High Court view was not accepted for determining liability here, and the demands were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31351</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>