<?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 918 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211646</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) decision that the demand for service tax and penalties was time-barred and that there was insufficient evidence to prove deliberate suppression by the assessees. The burden of proof regarding intentional evasion of payment was not met by the Revenue, emphasizing that failure to register and pay service tax alone does not imply suppression.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=185063" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (8) TMI 918 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211646</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) decision that the demand for service tax and penalties was time-barred and that there was insufficient evidence to prove deliberate suppression by the assessees. The burden of proof regarding intentional evasion of payment was not met by the Revenue, emphasizing that failure to register and pay service tax alone does not imply suppression.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211646</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>