<?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 (9) TMI 434 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332173</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner&#039;s order confirming demands, interest, and penalties based on the first show cause notice for service tax payment, as it was quashed by the High Court. Since the issues in both notices were the same and the first notice was invalidated on its merits, the Tribunal ruled the order based on it was unsustainable. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, providing consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Jan 2018 18:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=440756" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (9) TMI 434 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332173</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner&#039;s order confirming demands, interest, and penalties based on the first show cause notice for service tax payment, as it was quashed by the High Court. Since the issues in both notices were the same and the first notice was invalidated on its merits, the Tribunal ruled the order based on it was unsustainable. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, providing consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332173</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>