<?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>2015 (10) TMI 859 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265584</link>
    <description>The Tribunal modified the order, directing the Adjudicating authority to re-determine the tax demand by excluding surplus/profit returned to Brand Owners and reimbursable expenses. Penalties under Sections 76 and 78 were waived, but the penalty under Section 77 was upheld. The constitutional validity challenge of the levy is pending before the High Court.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 May 2016 13:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=401189" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 859 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265584</link>
      <description>The Tribunal modified the order, directing the Adjudicating authority to re-determine the tax demand by excluding surplus/profit returned to Brand Owners and reimbursable expenses. Penalties under Sections 76 and 78 were waived, but the penalty under Section 77 was upheld. The constitutional validity challenge of the levy is pending before the High Court.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265584</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>