<?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 (12) TMI 1863 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469694</link>
    <description>Royalty paid to the Government in relation to mining rights was not chargeable to service tax under reverse charge for the period before 01.04.2016, because government services were substantially within the negative-list regime and the amendment taxing services provided by the Government to business entities applied only from that date. The demand was therefore unsustainable for the pre-01.04.2016 period. The impugned order was also set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration, as the mining lease agreements were not available before the lower authorities and the evidentiary record was insufficient for final adjudication.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2026 20:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=909172" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (12) TMI 1863 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469694</link>
      <description>Royalty paid to the Government in relation to mining rights was not chargeable to service tax under reverse charge for the period before 01.04.2016, because government services were substantially within the negative-list regime and the amendment taxing services provided by the Government to business entities applied only from that date. The demand was therefore unsustainable for the pre-01.04.2016 period. The impugned order was also set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration, as the mining lease agreements were not available before the lower authorities and the evidentiary record was insufficient for final adjudication.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469694</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>