<?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>2015 (7) TMI 713 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261752</link>
    <description>The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that the longer limitation period could not be invoked due to the absence of evidence showing mala fide intention. The appeal succeeded based on this ground, and the demand and penalty imposed by the Commissioner were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2015 06:37:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=390861" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (7) TMI 713 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261752</link>
      <description>The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that the longer limitation period could not be invoked due to the absence of evidence showing mala fide intention. The appeal succeeded based on this ground, and the demand and penalty imposed by the Commissioner were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261752</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>