<?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 (6) TMI 475 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328766</link>
    <description>The Tribunal confirmed a service tax demand of Rs. 1,06,73,865 under various services, including late payment charges. The appellant disputed a portion of the demand related to funds collected for maintenance security, escrow account, and corpus fund for a cooperative society. The Tribunal distinguished the case from a precedent, emphasizing the appellant&#039;s ability to utilize the funds for maintenance until the cooperative society&#039;s formation. A pre-deposit of Rs. 30 lakhs was ordered within six weeks, with non-compliance risking dismissal of the appeal. Compliance with the pre-deposit was required to stay the recovery of the remaining liability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Jun 2016 12:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=431369" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (6) TMI 475 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328766</link>
      <description>The Tribunal confirmed a service tax demand of Rs. 1,06,73,865 under various services, including late payment charges. The appellant disputed a portion of the demand related to funds collected for maintenance security, escrow account, and corpus fund for a cooperative society. The Tribunal distinguished the case from a precedent, emphasizing the appellant&#039;s ability to utilize the funds for maintenance until the cooperative society&#039;s formation. A pre-deposit of Rs. 30 lakhs was ordered within six weeks, with non-compliance risking dismissal of the appeal. Compliance with the pre-deposit was required to stay the recovery of the remaining liability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328766</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>