<?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 (8) TMI 125 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205533</link>
    <description>Service tax limitation was not accepted as a bar where the Tribunal found that the extended period could be invoked if suppression or misstatement with intent to evade duty was established. The lower appellate authority had set aside the demand only on limitation without examining the merits. The Tribunal rejected the limitation objection and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication on merits after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Sep 2011 10:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=179040" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (8) TMI 125 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205533</link>
      <description>Service tax limitation was not accepted as a bar where the Tribunal found that the extended period could be invoked if suppression or misstatement with intent to evade duty was established. The lower appellate authority had set aside the demand only on limitation without examining the merits. The Tribunal rejected the limitation objection and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication on merits after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205533</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>