<?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 200 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31942</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant in an appeal against a demand for service tax prior to 1-7-2003 for providing Clearing and Forwarding Agent services. The Tribunal found that the appellants, who procured orders on a commission basis, did not provide C&amp;amp;F Agent services. Relying on precedents, the Tribunal held that mere order procurement on a commission basis did not constitute C&amp;amp;F Agent service, setting aside the impugned orders and allowing the appeals.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=70587" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (7) TMI 200 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31942</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant in an appeal against a demand for service tax prior to 1-7-2003 for providing Clearing and Forwarding Agent services. The Tribunal found that the appellants, who procured orders on a commission basis, did not provide C&amp;amp;F Agent services. Relying on precedents, the Tribunal held that mere order procurement on a commission basis did not constitute C&amp;amp;F Agent service, setting aside the impugned orders and allowing the appeals.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31942</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>