<?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>2013 (1) TMI 296 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220190</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the impugned order in a tax case due to the lack of quantified demands and penalties. The case was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision considering all issues raised in the department&#039;s appeal. The Tribunal stressed the importance of clear findings and quantification of tax liability and penalties when seeking revisions. The appeal was allowed by way of remand for a comprehensive decision-making process.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Jan 2013 15:40:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=193559" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (1) TMI 296 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220190</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the impugned order in a tax case due to the lack of quantified demands and penalties. The case was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision considering all issues raised in the department&#039;s appeal. The Tribunal stressed the importance of clear findings and quantification of tax liability and penalties when seeking revisions. The appeal was allowed by way of remand for a comprehensive decision-making process.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220190</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>