<?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 1134 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342164</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the initial order and remanded the case for further review, emphasizing the need for verification regarding the actual remittance of transaction fees to the exchange without retention by the appellant. The decision highlighted the significance of supporting documentary evidence and the appellant&#039;s opportunity to present their defense in the reevaluation process.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 May 2017 14:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=466936" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (4) TMI 1134 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342164</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the initial order and remanded the case for further review, emphasizing the need for verification regarding the actual remittance of transaction fees to the exchange without retention by the appellant. The decision highlighted the significance of supporting documentary evidence and the appellant&#039;s opportunity to present their defense in the reevaluation process.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342164</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>