<?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>2005 (12) TMI 524 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126745</link>
    <description>Service tax recovery for the period 16-11-1997 to 1-6-1998 turned on the retrospective amendments to the Finance Act, 1994 and the scope of the demand machinery. The controlling principle applied was that Section 73 applies only to persons liable to file returns under Section 70, while assessees covered solely by Section 71A fall outside that provision. On that basis, the show-cause notice was held not maintainable and the demand could not be sustained against the recipient.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Dec 2012 15:08:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=163634" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (12) TMI 524 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126745</link>
      <description>Service tax recovery for the period 16-11-1997 to 1-6-1998 turned on the retrospective amendments to the Finance Act, 1994 and the scope of the demand machinery. The controlling principle applied was that Section 73 applies only to persons liable to file returns under Section 70, while assessees covered solely by Section 71A fall outside that provision. On that basis, the show-cause notice was held not maintainable and the demand could not be sustained against the recipient.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126745</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>