<?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 (7) TMI 942 - CESTAT, New Delhi</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212329</link>
    <description>An appeal was rejected as time barred in a service tax dispute concerning inclusion of the value of free-supplied material in the assessable value. The delay was explained on the ground that a connected appeal on the same issue was already pending before the Tribunal with recovery stayed, and the assessee bona fide believed a separate filing was unnecessary. On that basis, the limitation-based rejection was held unsustainable. As the Tribunal had already granted waiver on the same issue, insistence on pre-deposit before the Commissioner (Appeals) was also found unjustified. The matter was remanded for decision on merits after hearing the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Mar 2012 18:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=185740" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (7) TMI 942 - CESTAT, New Delhi</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212329</link>
      <description>An appeal was rejected as time barred in a service tax dispute concerning inclusion of the value of free-supplied material in the assessable value. The delay was explained on the ground that a connected appeal on the same issue was already pending before the Tribunal with recovery stayed, and the assessee bona fide believed a separate filing was unnecessary. On that basis, the limitation-based rejection was held unsustainable. As the Tribunal had already granted waiver on the same issue, insistence on pre-deposit before the Commissioner (Appeals) was also found unjustified. The matter was remanded for decision on merits after hearing the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212329</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>