<?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 (8) TMI 590 - CESTAT  ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331206</link>
    <description>Interim stay was declined because the Revenue failed to show a prima facie basis to interfere with the order under challenge. The Tribunal noted that earlier decisions had treated similar construction activities for government buildings and welfare housing as non-commercial in nature, and on the existing record there was no sufficient ground for grant of stay. The assessee therefore continued to benefit from the impugned order, and the stay application was not admitted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Aug 2016 14:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=438391" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (8) TMI 590 - CESTAT  ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331206</link>
      <description>Interim stay was declined because the Revenue failed to show a prima facie basis to interfere with the order under challenge. The Tribunal noted that earlier decisions had treated similar construction activities for government buildings and welfare housing as non-commercial in nature, and on the existing record there was no sufficient ground for grant of stay. The assessee therefore continued to benefit from the impugned order, and the stay application was not admitted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331206</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>