<?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 (7) TMI 152 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31479</link>
    <description>Interconnectivity usage charges were treated as outside the taxable category for the relevant period because, under the Board&#039;s circular, such charges represent a service between telegraph authorities rather than a telephone connection service provided directly to a subscriber. The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in the same appellant&#039;s case and concluded that IUC was not liable to service tax for the period in question, rendering the demand unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=70126" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (7) TMI 152 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31479</link>
      <description>Interconnectivity usage charges were treated as outside the taxable category for the relevant period because, under the Board&#039;s circular, such charges represent a service between telegraph authorities rather than a telephone connection service provided directly to a subscriber. The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in the same appellant&#039;s case and concluded that IUC was not liable to service tax for the period in question, rendering the demand unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31479</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>