<?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 321 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220215</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the Order-in-Appeal, allowing the appellants&#039; appeals regarding liability for service tax payment on consigner or consignee. The Tribunal found that the service tax amount was already paid by the transporter, and the Department should not have issued a notice. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of correctly attributing service tax liability and the necessity of supporting penalties with relevant evidence under the Finance Act, 1994.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Jan 2013 07:18:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=193584" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (1) TMI 321 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220215</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the Order-in-Appeal, allowing the appellants&#039; appeals regarding liability for service tax payment on consigner or consignee. The Tribunal found that the service tax amount was already paid by the transporter, and the Department should not have issued a notice. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of correctly attributing service tax liability and the necessity of supporting penalties with relevant evidence under the Finance Act, 1994.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220215</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>