<?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>2006 (5) TMI 18 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=651</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) directions regarding the re-quantification of service tax liability and penalty, finding them valid. The original authority was directed to conduct a fresh analysis of the includibility of expenses without being bound by previous observations. The Tribunal modified the order by deleting certain words from the remand order but ultimately upheld the Commissioner&#039;s decision. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2008 19:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=40096" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (5) TMI 18 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=651</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) directions regarding the re-quantification of service tax liability and penalty, finding them valid. The original authority was directed to conduct a fresh analysis of the includibility of expenses without being bound by previous observations. The Tribunal modified the order by deleting certain words from the remand order but ultimately upheld the Commissioner&#039;s decision. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=651</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>