<?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>2003 (2) TMI 414 -  CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that no mistake apparent from the record was shown in its earlier final order, because that order had already recorded liability to service tax and found the demand rightly raised. It also noted that the refund sanction had been withdrawn in proceedings concerning rejection of the refund claim and validation of the service tax levy on users of the services. On that basis, the Tribunal found no basis for rectification and rejected the application.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2008 13:56:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=39557" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (2) TMI 414 -  CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that no mistake apparent from the record was shown in its earlier final order, because that order had already recorded liability to service tax and found the demand rightly raised. It also noted that the refund sanction had been withdrawn in proceedings concerning rejection of the refund claim and validation of the service tax levy on users of the services. On that basis, the Tribunal found no basis for rectification and rejected the application.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>