<?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 (12) TMI 92 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268788</link>
    <description>A writ challenge to a service tax and penalty demand was not entertained because an effective statutory appeal remedy was available under the Finance Act, 1994. The article also notes that, since the proceedings began before the amendment introducing a 7.5% appeal fee requirement, any appeal would be governed by the pre-amendment regime. If an appeal is filed, the tribunal is to number it and decide any waiver of pre-deposit and stay application on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Jan 2016 17:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=407249" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (12) TMI 92 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268788</link>
      <description>A writ challenge to a service tax and penalty demand was not entertained because an effective statutory appeal remedy was available under the Finance Act, 1994. The article also notes that, since the proceedings began before the amendment introducing a 7.5% appeal fee requirement, any appeal would be governed by the pre-amendment regime. If an appeal is filed, the tribunal is to number it and decide any waiver of pre-deposit and stay application on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268788</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>