<?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>2009 (1) TMI 18 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32253</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the tax demand and penalties in a case concerning service tax liability on free services during a car sale warranty period. Relying on precedents and lack of evidence of reimbursement, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant. The decision emphasized the importance of evidence and legal precedent in tax liability cases, highlighting the necessity of demonstrating reimbursement and including service charges in determining service tax liability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=70895" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (1) TMI 18 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32253</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the tax demand and penalties in a case concerning service tax liability on free services during a car sale warranty period. Relying on precedents and lack of evidence of reimbursement, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant. The decision emphasized the importance of evidence and legal precedent in tax liability cases, highlighting the necessity of demonstrating reimbursement and including service charges in determining service tax liability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32253</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>