<?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>2005 (2) TMI 1 - CESTAT (NEW DELHI)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=230</link>
    <description>Where provisional service tax assessment was finalised and tax had been paid in excess for some periods but short for others within the same dispute period, the excess payment had to be adjusted against the short payment while computing the net liability. Interest on the short payment for April 1997 to March 2000 was not recoverable because the relevant provisional assessment rules did not authorise interest for that period, and the provision introducing such levy took effect only from 1 July 2001. The demand for interest was therefore unsustainable, and the short-payment demand had to be recomputed after giving credit for excess payment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Mar 2016 12:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=39694" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (2) TMI 1 - CESTAT (NEW DELHI)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=230</link>
      <description>Where provisional service tax assessment was finalised and tax had been paid in excess for some periods but short for others within the same dispute period, the excess payment had to be adjusted against the short payment while computing the net liability. Interest on the short payment for April 1997 to March 2000 was not recoverable because the relevant provisional assessment rules did not authorise interest for that period, and the provision introducing such levy took effect only from 1 July 2001. The demand for interest was therefore unsustainable, and the short-payment demand had to be recomputed after giving credit for excess payment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=230</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>