<?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 (8) TMI 72 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215387</link>
    <description>Pre-deposit of service tax, interest and penalties was waived where the applicant argued that the service recipient had already discharged tax on the same activity. The CESTAT held that, for purposes of the pending appeal, recovery should remain stayed, reflecting prima facie consideration of the duplication-of-tax contention. The operative effect was relief from the upfront deposit requirement and suspension of recovery proceedings until disposal of the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Jun 2012 18:55:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=188774" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (8) TMI 72 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215387</link>
      <description>Pre-deposit of service tax, interest and penalties was waived where the applicant argued that the service recipient had already discharged tax on the same activity. The CESTAT held that, for purposes of the pending appeal, recovery should remain stayed, reflecting prima facie consideration of the duplication-of-tax contention. The operative effect was relief from the upfront deposit requirement and suspension of recovery proceedings until disposal of the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215387</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>