<?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 (7) TMI 63 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344951</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, setting aside the order confirming a Service Tax demand and penalties. It emphasized the revenue neutrality of the case, ruling that the extended period of limitation was not applicable due to the availability of immediate credit and refund for the tax paid. The Tribunal held that in revenue-neutral cases where there is no intention to evade duty payment, the extended limitation period cannot be invoked, citing relevant precedents to support its decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Jul 2017 10:06:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=478528" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (7) TMI 63 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344951</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, setting aside the order confirming a Service Tax demand and penalties. It emphasized the revenue neutrality of the case, ruling that the extended period of limitation was not applicable due to the availability of immediate credit and refund for the tax paid. The Tribunal held that in revenue-neutral cases where there is no intention to evade duty payment, the extended limitation period cannot be invoked, citing relevant precedents to support its decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344951</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>