<?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>2017 (3) TMI 179 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339676</link>
    <description>The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Original Authority for a fresh decision on the appellant&#039;s tax liability for commercial construction services. The appellant&#039;s contention that the demand was time-barred was upheld, noting their compliance history. The Tribunal found no fraud by the appellant and deemed the demand for an extended period and penalty imposition unjustified. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling in favor of the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Mar 2017 07:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=460321" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 179 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339676</link>
      <description>The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Original Authority for a fresh decision on the appellant&#039;s tax liability for commercial construction services. The appellant&#039;s contention that the demand was time-barred was upheld, noting their compliance history. The Tribunal found no fraud by the appellant and deemed the demand for an extended period and penalty imposition unjustified. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling in favor of the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339676</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>