<?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 (9) TMI 932 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150426</link>
    <description>Typographical and consequential errors in an earlier stay order were corrected where the period of dispute, the period covered by the show cause notice, the date of Notification No. 19/2005-ST, and the recorded finding on service tax liability had been misstated. The corrected position reflected that the assessee was not liable to pay service tax for the period prior to 16-6-2005. The order was amended accordingly to align the record with the intended factual and legal position.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 May 2013 16:53:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=167466" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (9) TMI 932 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150426</link>
      <description>Typographical and consequential errors in an earlier stay order were corrected where the period of dispute, the period covered by the show cause notice, the date of Notification No. 19/2005-ST, and the recorded finding on service tax liability had been misstated. The corrected position reflected that the assessee was not liable to pay service tax for the period prior to 16-6-2005. The order was amended accordingly to align the record with the intended factual and legal position.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150426</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>