<?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 (1) TMI 302 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77210</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal regarding the confirmation of demand for Service tax on Cargo Handling Service. The demand for the period from August 2002 to January 31, 2004, was held time-barred due to limitations. However, the demand for the period from February 2004 to October 12, 2004, was upheld, leading to a remand for requantification. Penalties under Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994, were also upheld for the upheld demand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Sep 2010 22:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=115383" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (1) TMI 302 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77210</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal regarding the confirmation of demand for Service tax on Cargo Handling Service. The demand for the period from August 2002 to January 31, 2004, was held time-barred due to limitations. However, the demand for the period from February 2004 to October 12, 2004, was upheld, leading to a remand for requantification. Penalties under Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994, were also upheld for the upheld demand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77210</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>