<?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 380 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76417</link>
    <description>Service tax was held payable on the letting out of facilities, but because tax had not been separately recovered from customers, the consideration realised had to be treated as a cum-tax value. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the original authority for fresh computation of the demand on that basis, with interest and penalty also left open for re-determination after granting the assessee an opportunity of hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Apr 2013 14:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=114626" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (4) TMI 380 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76417</link>
      <description>Service tax was held payable on the letting out of facilities, but because tax had not been separately recovered from customers, the consideration realised had to be treated as a cum-tax value. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the original authority for fresh computation of the demand on that basis, with interest and penalty also left open for re-determination after granting the assessee an opportunity of hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76417</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>