<?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>2011 (4) TMI 132 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203832</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the revenue&#039;s miscellaneous application, restoring the appeal for disposal along with another appeal. Regarding the classification of services provided by NGRI, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication to determine if NGRI provided scientific or technical consultancy based on project reports. The Tribunal questioned the Commissioner&#039;s invocation of the extended period for demand and remanded the matter for re-evaluation. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner&#039;s decision on cum-tax benefit and directed a fresh adjudication in line with established legal principles. Both appeals were allowed for remand and further examination.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 Jun 2016 09:56:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=177383" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (4) TMI 132 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203832</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the revenue&#039;s miscellaneous application, restoring the appeal for disposal along with another appeal. Regarding the classification of services provided by NGRI, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication to determine if NGRI provided scientific or technical consultancy based on project reports. The Tribunal questioned the Commissioner&#039;s invocation of the extended period for demand and remanded the matter for re-evaluation. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner&#039;s decision on cum-tax benefit and directed a fresh adjudication in line with established legal principles. Both appeals were allowed for remand and further examination.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203832</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>