<?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 208 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32979</link>
    <description>Full waiver of pre-deposit was declined where, on the material before the Tribunal, part of the bandwidth/telecommunication links appeared to have been provided to entities that were not registered as telegraph authorities under the Indian Telegraph Act and therefore prima facie fell within the taxable net. The Tribunal treated the stay liability as confined to a much smaller amount than the overall demand and ordered a partial deposit of Rs. 7 lakhs, granting waiver only for the balance of service tax and penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=71616" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (9) TMI 208 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32979</link>
      <description>Full waiver of pre-deposit was declined where, on the material before the Tribunal, part of the bandwidth/telecommunication links appeared to have been provided to entities that were not registered as telegraph authorities under the Indian Telegraph Act and therefore prima facie fell within the taxable net. The Tribunal treated the stay liability as confined to a much smaller amount than the overall demand and ordered a partial deposit of Rs. 7 lakhs, granting waiver only for the balance of service tax and penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32979</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>