<?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 (9) TMI 79 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31772</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling that the appellant was not liable to pay service tax before 1-1-2005 for consulting engineer services received from their holding company. The decision was based on the interpretation of the Finance Act, 1994, and previous case law, specifically following the precedent set by the Hindustan Zinc Ltd. case. The Tribunal granted consequential relief to the appellant, emphasizing consistency in the application of the law and the specific provisions governing service tax liability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Feb 2009 12:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=70418" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (9) TMI 79 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31772</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling that the appellant was not liable to pay service tax before 1-1-2005 for consulting engineer services received from their holding company. The decision was based on the interpretation of the Finance Act, 1994, and previous case law, specifically following the precedent set by the Hindustan Zinc Ltd. case. The Tribunal granted consequential relief to the appellant, emphasizing consistency in the application of the law and the specific provisions governing service tax liability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31772</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>