<?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 (6) TMI 384 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234559</link>
    <description>Where taxability was debatable and the assessee acted under bona fide belief, the normal-period service tax and consequential interest were sustained, while the extended-period demand was annulled. On the same facts, penalty was held unwarranted and set aside. The operative effect was a modification of the adjudication order to preserve recovery for the normal period only, with relief from the extended limitation exposure and penal consequences.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Jun 2013 15:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=196969" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (6) TMI 384 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234559</link>
      <description>Where taxability was debatable and the assessee acted under bona fide belief, the normal-period service tax and consequential interest were sustained, while the extended-period demand was annulled. On the same facts, penalty was held unwarranted and set aside. The operative effect was a modification of the adjudication order to preserve recovery for the normal period only, with relief from the extended limitation exposure and penal consequences.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234559</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>