<?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 (11) TMI 740 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218725</link>
    <description>Retrospective validation of service tax on goods transport services for the period 16-11-1997 to 02-06-1998 did not sustain post-2004 demands against service recipients, as the Tribunal followed High Court rulings over an earlier Larger Bench view and held the recovery action not maintainable. In the Nova Iron and Steel matter, a notice issued in 2001 and a later corrigendum were treated as unenforceable for the disputed short levy because the demand was not sustainable under the amended recovery framework and the relevant High Court precedent. The Tribunal accordingly held that the impugned demands could not be enforced against the assessees.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2015 14:55:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=192097" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (11) TMI 740 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218725</link>
      <description>Retrospective validation of service tax on goods transport services for the period 16-11-1997 to 02-06-1998 did not sustain post-2004 demands against service recipients, as the Tribunal followed High Court rulings over an earlier Larger Bench view and held the recovery action not maintainable. In the Nova Iron and Steel matter, a notice issued in 2001 and a later corrigendum were treated as unenforceable for the disputed short levy because the demand was not sustainable under the amended recovery framework and the relevant High Court precedent. The Tribunal accordingly held that the impugned demands could not be enforced against the assessees.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218725</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>