<?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>2014 (2) TMI 197 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243597</link>
    <description>The Tribunal granted partial relief to the appellant in a service tax dispute, directing a pre-deposit of Rs. 50 lakhs within 6 weeks to stay the balance dues totaling over Rs. 1.7 crores. The demand breakup included various service charges, with the appellant contesting only a portion related to maintenance and repair services. Despite arguing for an accrual basis of demand quantification and raising pleas of time-bar and financial hardships, the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence. The Tribunal found no prima facie case against the demand except for the contested amount, emphasizing the need for the pre-deposit to secure the stay against the remaining dues.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Feb 2014 10:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=344950" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (2) TMI 197 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243597</link>
      <description>The Tribunal granted partial relief to the appellant in a service tax dispute, directing a pre-deposit of Rs. 50 lakhs within 6 weeks to stay the balance dues totaling over Rs. 1.7 crores. The demand breakup included various service charges, with the appellant contesting only a portion related to maintenance and repair services. Despite arguing for an accrual basis of demand quantification and raising pleas of time-bar and financial hardships, the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence. The Tribunal found no prima facie case against the demand except for the contested amount, emphasizing the need for the pre-deposit to secure the stay against the remaining dues.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243597</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>