<?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>2004 (9) TMI 3 - CESTAT (MUMBAI)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=227</link>
    <description>A service tax demand cannot be sustained where the show cause notice calls upon the assessee only to answer proposed penalties and interest, but does not specifically demand service tax. The notice in this matter invoked penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 81 and recovery of interest for delayed payment, yet omitted any explicit tax demand. On that basis, the Tribunal held that the demand was legally untenable and set it aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2008 18:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=39691" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (9) TMI 3 - CESTAT (MUMBAI)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=227</link>
      <description>A service tax demand cannot be sustained where the show cause notice calls upon the assessee only to answer proposed penalties and interest, but does not specifically demand service tax. The notice in this matter invoked penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 81 and recovery of interest for delayed payment, yet omitted any explicit tax demand. On that basis, the Tribunal held that the demand was legally untenable and set it aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=227</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>