<?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>2007 (8) TMI 136 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2637</link>
    <description>The appeal by the Revenue challenging the abatement granted in respect of Turnover Tax and C &amp;amp; F Charges was dismissed. The Commissioner (A) upheld the Order-in-Original granting the abatement, finding the assessee entitled to both benefits. The Tribunal concurred, citing precedent and determining that the charges in question did not qualify as C &amp;amp; F Charges. With no evidence supporting the Revenue&#039;s position, the appeal lacked merit and was dismissed, affirming the decision in favor of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=41994" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (8) TMI 136 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2637</link>
      <description>The appeal by the Revenue challenging the abatement granted in respect of Turnover Tax and C &amp;amp; F Charges was dismissed. The Commissioner (A) upheld the Order-in-Original granting the abatement, finding the assessee entitled to both benefits. The Tribunal concurred, citing precedent and determining that the charges in question did not qualify as C &amp;amp; F Charges. With no evidence supporting the Revenue&#039;s position, the appeal lacked merit and was dismissed, affirming the decision in favor of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2637</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>