<?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>2024 (3) TMI 1466 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462960</link>
    <description>Service tax under reverse charge on royalty, DMF and NMET paid to a State Government for mining rights was held not leviable, as the payments were treated as consideration for grant of mining rights rather than a taxable service. The Tribunal followed its earlier view that such government-related receipts fell within the negative list or otherwise outside the taxable service regime for the relevant period, and noted that the taxable event must exist when the service is provided or agreed to be provided. It also held that a contrary circular could not override the judicial position. The demand and consequential confirmation were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Jul 2025 18:57:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=839236" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (3) TMI 1466 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462960</link>
      <description>Service tax under reverse charge on royalty, DMF and NMET paid to a State Government for mining rights was held not leviable, as the payments were treated as consideration for grant of mining rights rather than a taxable service. The Tribunal followed its earlier view that such government-related receipts fell within the negative list or otherwise outside the taxable service regime for the relevant period, and noted that the taxable event must exist when the service is provided or agreed to be provided. It also held that a contrary circular could not override the judicial position. The demand and consequential confirmation were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462960</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>