<?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 (3) TMI 905 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325721</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal restored the stay application dismissed for default after a satisfactory cause was shown. The adjudication order confirmed a service tax demand of Rs. 56,06,254 on the basis of the appellant providing taxable services. The Commissioner rejected the appellant&#039;s appeal, upholding the service tax demand. The main issue was the interpretation of services provided by the appellant, with the Tribunal ruling against the appellant&#039;s arguments. The judgment directed the appellant to pre-deposit the assessed liability within a specified timeframe, failing which the appeal would be dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Mar 2016 19:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=421462" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (3) TMI 905 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325721</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal restored the stay application dismissed for default after a satisfactory cause was shown. The adjudication order confirmed a service tax demand of Rs. 56,06,254 on the basis of the appellant providing taxable services. The Commissioner rejected the appellant&#039;s appeal, upholding the service tax demand. The main issue was the interpretation of services provided by the appellant, with the Tribunal ruling against the appellant&#039;s arguments. The judgment directed the appellant to pre-deposit the assessed liability within a specified timeframe, failing which the appeal would be dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325721</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>