<?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 1579 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266304</link>
    <description>At the pre-deposit stage, interference with a Tribunal&#039;s refusal to grant complete waiver is unwarranted unless the prima facie assessment shows perversity, misreading of material, or legal error. The HC upheld the Tribunal&#039;s direction to deposit and found no basis to disturb its view that the credit notes and adjustments mainly reflected billing corrections, discounts, rebates, and other accounting entries, rather than non-provision of services attracting relief under Rule 6(3) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. It also rejected the plea that public sector undertaking status entitled the appellant to a bond instead of cash deposit, holding that no absolute rule of that kind was shown.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Oct 2015 09:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=402250" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 1579 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266304</link>
      <description>At the pre-deposit stage, interference with a Tribunal&#039;s refusal to grant complete waiver is unwarranted unless the prima facie assessment shows perversity, misreading of material, or legal error. The HC upheld the Tribunal&#039;s direction to deposit and found no basis to disturb its view that the credit notes and adjustments mainly reflected billing corrections, discounts, rebates, and other accounting entries, rather than non-provision of services attracting relief under Rule 6(3) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. It also rejected the plea that public sector undertaking status entitled the appellant to a bond instead of cash deposit, holding that no absolute rule of that kind was shown.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266304</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>