<?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 (10) TMI 121 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32763</link>
    <description>Service tax paid in India on consulting engineer&#039;s services received from a non-resident provider abroad was treated as wrongly collected for a period before 1-1-2005. The Tribunal applied the Larger Bench view that, prior to that date, taxable services provided from outside India by a non-resident without an office in India were not taxable in the hands of the recipient in India. On that basis, the refund claim for the April to September 2003 period was allowable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2015 10:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=71401" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (10) TMI 121 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32763</link>
      <description>Service tax paid in India on consulting engineer&#039;s services received from a non-resident provider abroad was treated as wrongly collected for a period before 1-1-2005. The Tribunal applied the Larger Bench view that, prior to that date, taxable services provided from outside India by a non-resident without an office in India were not taxable in the hands of the recipient in India. On that basis, the refund claim for the April to September 2003 period was allowable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32763</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>