<?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>2006 (10) TMI 394 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162778</link>
    <description>Retrospective amendments to the service tax provisions did not make show cause notices under section 73 sustainable against goods transport operator service recipients covered by the special return-filing scheme in section 71A. The statutory scheme continued to confine section 73 to assessees liable to file returns under section 70, and the amended text did not clearly extend that recovery mechanism to the appellants&#039; class. The notices were therefore not maintainable, the demand could not be sustained, and the impugned order was set aside with consequential relief. The text also records that the same issue had already been decided for the assessee and affirmed by the Supreme Court.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Jan 2016 10:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=348653" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (10) TMI 394 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162778</link>
      <description>Retrospective amendments to the service tax provisions did not make show cause notices under section 73 sustainable against goods transport operator service recipients covered by the special return-filing scheme in section 71A. The statutory scheme continued to confine section 73 to assessees liable to file returns under section 70, and the amended text did not clearly extend that recovery mechanism to the appellants&#039; class. The notices were therefore not maintainable, the demand could not be sustained, and the impugned order was set aside with consequential relief. The text also records that the same issue had already been decided for the assessee and affirmed by the Supreme Court.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162778</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>