https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266 The Tribunal set aside the confirmation of demands post-February 2001 due to the absence of a Show Cause Notice, citing precedents emphasizing the mandatory requirement. The rejection of the adjustment claim under Section 68 and Section 65(20) related to the definition of Courier Agency was upheld, with the Tribunal ruling that customer deliveries to the office constituted 'door-to-door transportation.' The abatement claim of duty paid was also dismissed, as the Tribunal deemed customer deliveries to the office fell within the definition of 'Courier Agency,' affirming the broader interpretation of 'door-to-door transportation.' en-us Wed, 10 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 08 May 2011 14:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266 The Tribunal set aside the confirmation of demands post-February 2001 due to the absence of a Show Cause Notice, citing precedents emphasizing the mandatory requirement. The rejection of the adjustment claim under Section 68 and Section 65(20) related to the definition of Courier Agency was upheld, with the Tribunal ruling that customer deliveries to the office constituted 'door-to-door transportation.' The abatement claim of duty paid was also dismissed, as the Tribunal deemed customer deliveries to the office fell within the definition of 'Courier Agency,' affirming the broader interpretation of 'door-to-door transportation.' Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 10 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266