<?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 908 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344637</link>
    <description>The Tribunal confirmed the demand for service tax for the normal period but set aside the demand for the remaining period. No penalty was imposed due to the absence of malafide intention on the part of the appellant. The extended period of limitation was deemed inapplicable as the issue of service tax payment was disputed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Jun 2017 09:23:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=473980" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (6) TMI 908 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344637</link>
      <description>The Tribunal confirmed the demand for service tax for the normal period but set aside the demand for the remaining period. No penalty was imposed due to the absence of malafide intention on the part of the appellant. The extended period of limitation was deemed inapplicable as the issue of service tax payment was disputed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344637</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>