<?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 (9) TMI 444 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208688</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant in a case concerning the limitation period for demanding interest on belated Service Tax payments for GTA services. The appellant&#039;s argument that the principle of limitation for demanding the principal amount should also apply to interest recovery, as there was no suppression or mis-declaration, was accepted. The Tribunal found that the Show Cause Notice demanding interest was issued beyond the 1-year period without any indication of suppression, and the appellant&#039;s regular filing of returns made it easy for the Revenue to identify the late payment. The appeal was allowed, granting consequential relief to the appellant based solely on the ground of limitation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 26 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 07:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=182149" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (9) TMI 444 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208688</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant in a case concerning the limitation period for demanding interest on belated Service Tax payments for GTA services. The appellant&#039;s argument that the principle of limitation for demanding the principal amount should also apply to interest recovery, as there was no suppression or mis-declaration, was accepted. The Tribunal found that the Show Cause Notice demanding interest was issued beyond the 1-year period without any indication of suppression, and the appellant&#039;s regular filing of returns made it easy for the Revenue to identify the late payment. The appeal was allowed, granting consequential relief to the appellant based solely on the ground of limitation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208688</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>