<?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 (6) TMI 115 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343844</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal set aside the Commissioner(Appeals)&#039;s decision confirming a service tax demand on services rendered under a brand name, remanding the matter to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh decision. The appellant was granted the opportunity to effectively contest the demand with additional evidence. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, and the stay application was disposed of accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Jun 2017 06:19:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=470741" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (6) TMI 115 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343844</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal set aside the Commissioner(Appeals)&#039;s decision confirming a service tax demand on services rendered under a brand name, remanding the matter to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh decision. The appellant was granted the opportunity to effectively contest the demand with additional evidence. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, and the stay application was disposed of accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343844</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>