<?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 (4) TMI 648 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341678</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the demand for the entire period was barred by limitation. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, granting consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Apr 2017 07:01:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=465843" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (4) TMI 648 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341678</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the demand for the entire period was barred by limitation. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, granting consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341678</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>