<?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>2009 (7) TMI 1091 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS),  PUNE-II</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148596</link>
    <description>A second show cause notice demanding the same service tax for the same period and amount was held unsustainable because an earlier notice on the same liability had already been adjudicated and affirmed, with the further challenge pending before the Tribunal. The reasoning was that once the dispute had moved into appellate proceedings, the same demand could not properly be raised again through a fresh notice. The cited decision was distinguished on the basis that it concerned a pending first notice, whereas this matter involved a prior adjudication and confirmation. The subsequent notice and confirmation were therefore set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Apr 2013 17:09:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166636" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (7) TMI 1091 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS),  PUNE-II</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148596</link>
      <description>A second show cause notice demanding the same service tax for the same period and amount was held unsustainable because an earlier notice on the same liability had already been adjudicated and affirmed, with the further challenge pending before the Tribunal. The reasoning was that once the dispute had moved into appellate proceedings, the same demand could not properly be raised again through a fresh notice. The cited decision was distinguished on the basis that it concerned a pending first notice, whereas this matter involved a prior adjudication and confirmation. The subsequent notice and confirmation were therefore set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148596</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>