<?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 (10) TMI 565 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201946</link>
    <description>In a waiver of pre-deposit application concerning courier service tax for the period 16.03.2005 to 15.06.2005, the Tribunal held prima facie that the foreign exchange receipt condition for courier services was introduced only from 16.06.2005 by Notification No. 28/2005-S.T., and that the India-based recipient objection was not prima facie applicable to courier services because that condition arose in a different notification for other services. However, because the disputed period overlapped the effective date of the foreign exchange requirement, the appellant was still required to make a partial pre-deposit. On deposit of Rs. 50,000, recovery of the balance tax, interest and penalty was stayed pending appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Jan 2011 16:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=175536" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (10) TMI 565 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201946</link>
      <description>In a waiver of pre-deposit application concerning courier service tax for the period 16.03.2005 to 15.06.2005, the Tribunal held prima facie that the foreign exchange receipt condition for courier services was introduced only from 16.06.2005 by Notification No. 28/2005-S.T., and that the India-based recipient objection was not prima facie applicable to courier services because that condition arose in a different notification for other services. However, because the disputed period overlapped the effective date of the foreign exchange requirement, the appellant was still required to make a partial pre-deposit. On deposit of Rs. 50,000, recovery of the balance tax, interest and penalty was stayed pending appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201946</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>