<?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 (5) TMI 1199 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343461</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the department&#039;s failure to issue a show cause notice and initiate proceedings under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 was a procedural lapse. The rejection of the refund claim was unjustified as there was no proper determination of tax liability. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential reliefs. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity for the department to follow due process in cases of disputed tax liability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Nov 2017 15:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=469819" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (5) TMI 1199 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343461</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the department&#039;s failure to issue a show cause notice and initiate proceedings under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 was a procedural lapse. The rejection of the refund claim was unjustified as there was no proper determination of tax liability. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential reliefs. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity for the department to follow due process in cases of disputed tax liability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343461</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>