<?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 (2) TMI 484 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221079</link>
    <description>The appellant successfully argued that they were not liable to pay Service tax on software maintenance prior to 1-6-2007, were entitled to credit for Service tax paid on telephone and medical insurance for employees, and the demand was time-barred under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. The judgment set aside the lower adjudicating authority&#039;s order and allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant on all disputed issues.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Feb 2013 07:43:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=194436" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (2) TMI 484 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221079</link>
      <description>The appellant successfully argued that they were not liable to pay Service tax on software maintenance prior to 1-6-2007, were entitled to credit for Service tax paid on telephone and medical insurance for employees, and the demand was time-barred under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. The judgment set aside the lower adjudicating authority&#039;s order and allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant on all disputed issues.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221079</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>