<?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>2008 (2) TMI 66 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4276</link>
    <description>The appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal due to the appellant&#039;s non-compliance with the pre-deposit order issued earlier. The appellant failed to deposit the specified amount, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The dispute involved the appellant&#039;s claim regarding Service Tax provisions for educational programs and training centers, with the Tribunal upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) decision to direct the pre-deposit. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal but allowed the appellant to deposit the required amount within two months to proceed with a hearing on the merits before the Commissioner (Appeals). Compliance with the pre-deposit order was emphasized for further consideration of the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=43619" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (2) TMI 66 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4276</link>
      <description>The appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal due to the appellant&#039;s non-compliance with the pre-deposit order issued earlier. The appellant failed to deposit the specified amount, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The dispute involved the appellant&#039;s claim regarding Service Tax provisions for educational programs and training centers, with the Tribunal upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) decision to direct the pre-deposit. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal but allowed the appellant to deposit the required amount within two months to proceed with a hearing on the merits before the Commissioner (Appeals). Compliance with the pre-deposit order was emphasized for further consideration of the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4276</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>