<?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 (7) TMI 1077 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330479</link>
    <description>The appeal was allowed for remand for de novo adjudication with specific directions: the demand related to certain charges was deemed unsustainable, the extended period for demand was upheld, a totaling mistake in the show cause notice was to be corrected, penalties under Section 76 should not be imposed if a penalty under Section 78 is imposed, and the appellant should have an opportunity to be heard during the de novo adjudication.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2017 12:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=436159" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (7) TMI 1077 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330479</link>
      <description>The appeal was allowed for remand for de novo adjudication with specific directions: the demand related to certain charges was deemed unsustainable, the extended period for demand was upheld, a totaling mistake in the show cause notice was to be corrected, penalties under Section 76 should not be imposed if a penalty under Section 78 is imposed, and the appellant should have an opportunity to be heard during the de novo adjudication.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330479</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>