<?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 832 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213251</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai, allowed the appeal by remanding the case to the original authority for a fresh decision. The Tribunal waived the predeposit of service tax, interest, and penalties under Sections 77 &amp;amp; 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The case revolved around the construction of quarters for Tamil Nadu Police officials, with the appellants arguing that it did not attract service tax as it did not meet the definition of &quot;residential complex.&quot; Emphasizing the importance of judicial precedents, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed a reevaluation by the original authority after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 May 2012 18:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=186652" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (9) TMI 832 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213251</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai, allowed the appeal by remanding the case to the original authority for a fresh decision. The Tribunal waived the predeposit of service tax, interest, and penalties under Sections 77 &amp;amp; 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The case revolved around the construction of quarters for Tamil Nadu Police officials, with the appellants arguing that it did not attract service tax as it did not meet the definition of &quot;residential complex.&quot; Emphasizing the importance of judicial precedents, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed a reevaluation by the original authority after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213251</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>