<?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 (8) TMI 1144 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776956</link>
    <description>CESTAT ND-AT upheld the impugned order dropping proceedings instituted against the manufacturer-licensee, finding interim payments during HC proceedings were mere deposits and not separate royalties. The parties settled, and a single royalty of Rs.96 crore was agreed and paid to the patent holder, on which IGST was paid. The SCN based on interim deposits was without merit. Appeal by Revenue dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Aug 2025 08:33:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=845084" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (8) TMI 1144 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776956</link>
      <description>CESTAT ND-AT upheld the impugned order dropping proceedings instituted against the manufacturer-licensee, finding interim payments during HC proceedings were mere deposits and not separate royalties. The parties settled, and a single royalty of Rs.96 crore was agreed and paid to the patent holder, on which IGST was paid. The SCN based on interim deposits was without merit. Appeal by Revenue dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776956</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>