<?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 (11) TMI 1021 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781553</link>
    <description>CESTAT held that separately billed logistics/handling charges are pre-sale activities not leviable to service tax and set aside demands relating to those charges. The Tribunal also quashed demands under reverse-charge for security services because the tax had already been discharged (preventing double taxation), and found no suppression warranting extended limitation; the show-cause notice was time-barred. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2025 08:42:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=865298" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (11) TMI 1021 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781553</link>
      <description>CESTAT held that separately billed logistics/handling charges are pre-sale activities not leviable to service tax and set aside demands relating to those charges. The Tribunal also quashed demands under reverse-charge for security services because the tax had already been discharged (preventing double taxation), and found no suppression warranting extended limitation; the show-cause notice was time-barred. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781553</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>