<?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 (11) TMI 77 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32289</link>
    <description>Consulting engineer service received in India from a non-resident provider with no office in India was taxable only from 1.1.2005 under Notification No. 36/2004. The amendment in Rule 2(1)(d) of the Service Tax Rules did not create recipient liability for the earlier period, so service tax could not be demanded for the pre-1.1.2005 period. The related demand and penalty were therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Sep 2009 13:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=70930" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (11) TMI 77 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32289</link>
      <description>Consulting engineer service received in India from a non-resident provider with no office in India was taxable only from 1.1.2005 under Notification No. 36/2004. The amendment in Rule 2(1)(d) of the Service Tax Rules did not create recipient liability for the earlier period, so service tax could not be demanded for the pre-1.1.2005 period. The related demand and penalty were therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32289</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>