<?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>2003 (7) TMI 430 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107762</link>
    <description>Service tax remitted to a bank other than the designated bank was treated as paid where the department acknowledged the amount as service tax and recorded it in its books. An inadvertent deposit in the wrong bank did not change the character of the payment or justify a fresh tax demand. As the notice proposed only interest and not a further tax recovery, the demand of interest on that basis was also unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:29:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144779" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (7) TMI 430 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107762</link>
      <description>Service tax remitted to a bank other than the designated bank was treated as paid where the department acknowledged the amount as service tax and recorded it in its books. An inadvertent deposit in the wrong bank did not change the character of the payment or justify a fresh tax demand. As the notice proposed only interest and not a further tax recovery, the demand of interest on that basis was also unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107762</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>