<?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 133 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33056</link>
    <description>Royalty remitted for technology received before 16-12-2002 was treated as outside the scope of service tax under Consulting Engineer service. The Tribunal followed earlier decisions, including a Larger Bench ruling, which had already held that such royalty payments were not chargeable on this basis. Reliance on an interim stay order did not displace the settled Tribunal position. The challenge was therefore rejected, and the lower appellate view was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 19 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=71691" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (11) TMI 133 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33056</link>
      <description>Royalty remitted for technology received before 16-12-2002 was treated as outside the scope of service tax under Consulting Engineer service. The Tribunal followed earlier decisions, including a Larger Bench ruling, which had already held that such royalty payments were not chargeable on this basis. Reliance on an interim stay order did not displace the settled Tribunal position. The challenge was therefore rejected, and the lower appellate view was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33056</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>