<?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>2025 (5) TMI 1759 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771487</link>
    <description>The Tribunal addressed two key issues: (a) service tax liability of a sub-contractor and (b) extended limitation period for tax recovery. It held that sub-contractors are independently liable to pay service tax, even if the main contractor has already paid tax. However, due to conflicting precedents and the appellant&#039;s reasonable belief, the Tribunal rejected penalties and the extended limitation period, partially allowing the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 May 2025 08:32:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=824605" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 1759 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771487</link>
      <description>The Tribunal addressed two key issues: (a) service tax liability of a sub-contractor and (b) extended limitation period for tax recovery. It held that sub-contractors are independently liable to pay service tax, even if the main contractor has already paid tax. However, due to conflicting precedents and the appellant&#039;s reasonable belief, the Tribunal rejected penalties and the extended limitation period, partially allowing the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771487</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>