<?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 (6) TMI 1172 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190891</link>
    <description>By consent of the parties and in line with its earlier order applying the Larger Bench ruling in Lanco Infratech Ltd., the Tribunal held that the proper course was to remit the matters for fresh consideration. The impugned orders were set aside, the appeals were sent back to the original adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication, and the pre-deposit condition was dispensed with. The pending stay petitions were disposed of on the same basis of remand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Mar 2017 07:46:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=460633" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (6) TMI 1172 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190891</link>
      <description>By consent of the parties and in line with its earlier order applying the Larger Bench ruling in Lanco Infratech Ltd., the Tribunal held that the proper course was to remit the matters for fresh consideration. The impugned orders were set aside, the appeals were sent back to the original adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication, and the pre-deposit condition was dispensed with. The pending stay petitions were disposed of on the same basis of remand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190891</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>