<?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>2012 (7) TMI 602 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215103</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, a godown operator, in a tax dispute case. The appellant was accused of providing taxable services without registration or payment, leading to a demand for service tax. The Tribunal held that the review order issued by the Commissioner was time-barred as it was passed beyond the two-year limitation period, making it invalid. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order, allowing the appeal on 20.12.2011.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Jun 2012 11:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=188493" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (7) TMI 602 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215103</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, a godown operator, in a tax dispute case. The appellant was accused of providing taxable services without registration or payment, leading to a demand for service tax. The Tribunal held that the review order issued by the Commissioner was time-barred as it was passed beyond the two-year limitation period, making it invalid. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order, allowing the appeal on 20.12.2011.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215103</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>