<?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>2002 (12) TMI 1 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94</link>
    <description>The appellants were required to pay service tax for services provided by goods transport operators from 16-11-1997 to 1-6-1998. Despite the retrospective amendment validating the tax, the lack of proper show cause notices under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 led to the demand for service tax being set aside. The appellants were directed to apply for registration and file returns, but the appeals were allowed, and the impugned orders-in-revision were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2008 13:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=39558" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (12) TMI 1 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94</link>
      <description>The appellants were required to pay service tax for services provided by goods transport operators from 16-11-1997 to 1-6-1998. Despite the retrospective amendment validating the tax, the lack of proper show cause notices under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 led to the demand for service tax being set aside. The appellants were directed to apply for registration and file returns, but the appeals were allowed, and the impugned orders-in-revision were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>