<?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 (4) TMI 343 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76035</link>
    <description>Appeals dismissed for non-compliance with pre-deposit were remanded for fresh adjudication on merits because the appellants had already discharged the service tax liability with interest and the deposit already made was treated as sufficient. The dispute concerned service tax on construction of residential complexes, and the Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to reconsider the matter de novo without insisting on any further pre-deposit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Apr 2013 15:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=114261" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (4) TMI 343 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76035</link>
      <description>Appeals dismissed for non-compliance with pre-deposit were remanded for fresh adjudication on merits because the appellants had already discharged the service tax liability with interest and the deposit already made was treated as sufficient. The dispute concerned service tax on construction of residential complexes, and the Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to reconsider the matter de novo without insisting on any further pre-deposit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76035</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>