<?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 (3) TMI 270 - CESTAT,  AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76731</link>
    <description>Service tax liability and penalty under the Finance Act, 1994 were directed to be reconsidered on merits by the Commissioner (Appeals), and the appeal was remanded without insisting on any pre-deposit of penalty. The operative effect was that the appellate authority had to decide the matter substantively rather than treating pre-deposit as a barrier to adjudication.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Oct 2010 16:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=114927" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (3) TMI 270 - CESTAT,  AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76731</link>
      <description>Service tax liability and penalty under the Finance Act, 1994 were directed to be reconsidered on merits by the Commissioner (Appeals), and the appeal was remanded without insisting on any pre-deposit of penalty. The operative effect was that the appellate authority had to decide the matter substantively rather than treating pre-deposit as a barrier to adjudication.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76731</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>