<?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 (6) TMI 408 - CESTAT,  AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75569</link>
    <description>The Tribunal treated the amount already deposited as sufficient pre-deposit for the appeal, taking into account the dispute over service tax on services received from a foreign service provider and the appellant&#039;s reliance on existing judicial view. It found the deposited sum exceeded the amount prima facie payable after the relevant date, so the balance service tax and penalties were waived as a pre-deposit requirement and recovery was stayed during pendency of the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=113833" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (6) TMI 408 - CESTAT,  AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75569</link>
      <description>The Tribunal treated the amount already deposited as sufficient pre-deposit for the appeal, taking into account the dispute over service tax on services received from a foreign service provider and the appellant&#039;s reliance on existing judicial view. It found the deposited sum exceeded the amount prima facie payable after the relevant date, so the balance service tax and penalties were waived as a pre-deposit requirement and recovery was stayed during pendency of the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75569</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>