<?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 (8) TMI 111 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346053</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the demand for inadmissible credit due to intentional mis-declaration, rejected the limitation defense, and revoked the penalty under Section 78 for lack of proper notification. The judgment emphasized the importance of accurate categorization and disclosure of credits in returns to avoid misinterpretation and penalties.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 31 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Aug 2017 12:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=484203" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (8) TMI 111 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346053</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the demand for inadmissible credit due to intentional mis-declaration, rejected the limitation defense, and revoked the penalty under Section 78 for lack of proper notification. The judgment emphasized the importance of accurate categorization and disclosure of credits in returns to avoid misinterpretation and penalties.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346053</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>