<?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>2010 (6) TMI 33 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76715</link>
    <description>The service tax demand was set aside and remanded because the assessee&#039;s supporting profit and loss account and annexures had not been examined by the revisional authority. Those documents were said to show that the alleged tour operator activity began only from October 2001, while the demand covered the earlier period from 1 April 2000 to 30 April 2001. A fresh adjudication was required after considering the documents and granting a reasonable personal hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Dec 2010 16:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=114912" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (6) TMI 33 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76715</link>
      <description>The service tax demand was set aside and remanded because the assessee&#039;s supporting profit and loss account and annexures had not been examined by the revisional authority. Those documents were said to show that the alleged tour operator activity began only from October 2001, while the demand covered the earlier period from 1 April 2000 to 30 April 2001. A fresh adjudication was required after considering the documents and granting a reasonable personal hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76715</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>