<?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>2009 (7) TMI 273 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75214</link>
    <description>The appellate limitation regime for service tax matters had to be applied under the Finance Act, 1994, not by importing the Central Excise Act, 1944 limitation scheme. The order was also vitiated because it was passed without granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The impugned order was therefore set aside and the matter remitted to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh decision on merits after affording a hearing to the appellants.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=113486" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (7) TMI 273 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75214</link>
      <description>The appellate limitation regime for service tax matters had to be applied under the Finance Act, 1994, not by importing the Central Excise Act, 1944 limitation scheme. The order was also vitiated because it was passed without granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The impugned order was therefore set aside and the matter remitted to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh decision on merits after affording a hearing to the appellants.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75214</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>