<?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>2016 (2) TMI 367 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271662</link>
    <description>The Tribunal remanded a case involving a demand of Service Tax for the period 1999-2004 against the Appellant. The Appellant disputed the inclusion of reimbursement expenses in the taxable value for Security Agency service. The Tribunal found that these expenses were incorrectly included and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating authority for a fresh decision, allowing the appeal for remand without expressing any view on the case&#039;s merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Feb 2016 23:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=416229" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (2) TMI 367 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271662</link>
      <description>The Tribunal remanded a case involving a demand of Service Tax for the period 1999-2004 against the Appellant. The Appellant disputed the inclusion of reimbursement expenses in the taxable value for Security Agency service. The Tribunal found that these expenses were incorrectly included and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating authority for a fresh decision, allowing the appeal for remand without expressing any view on the case&#039;s merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271662</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>