<?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 (11) TMI 638 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183799</link>
    <description>The appellant contended they did not qualify as a &#039;tour operator&#039; under the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld penalties and interest imposed but waived pre-deposit and stayed service tax recovery pending appeal, as the appellant&#039;s argument that they did not meet the tour operator criteria was not refuted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Jun 2016 10:34:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=432524" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (11) TMI 638 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183799</link>
      <description>The appellant contended they did not qualify as a &#039;tour operator&#039; under the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld penalties and interest imposed but waived pre-deposit and stayed service tax recovery pending appeal, as the appellant&#039;s argument that they did not meet the tour operator criteria was not refuted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183799</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>