<?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 (11) TMI 2 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172</link>
    <description>An adjudicatory order cannot impose a service tax demand where the show cause notices were confined to penalty, because relief cannot travel beyond the notice. The service tax demand was therefore unsustainable. Penalty also could not be upheld on the basis of the retrospective amendment to the Finance Act, 2000, as that amendment did not justify penalty on the facts considered. The penalty was therefore unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2008 18:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=39636" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (11) TMI 2 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172</link>
      <description>An adjudicatory order cannot impose a service tax demand where the show cause notices were confined to penalty, because relief cannot travel beyond the notice. The service tax demand was therefore unsustainable. Penalty also could not be upheld on the basis of the retrospective amendment to the Finance Act, 2000, as that amendment did not justify penalty on the facts considered. The penalty was therefore unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>