<?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 836 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346778</link>
    <description>The Tribunal found merit in the appellants&#039; arguments regarding the payment method and remanded the issue to the adjudicating authority for reevaluation. The penalties under Sections 76 and 78 were set aside due to the confusion and disputes surrounding the payment options. The judgment modified the impugned order, directing a reevaluation of the demand based on the basic fare method and nullifying all penalties.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2018 18:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=486471" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (8) TMI 836 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346778</link>
      <description>The Tribunal found merit in the appellants&#039; arguments regarding the payment method and remanded the issue to the adjudicating authority for reevaluation. The penalties under Sections 76 and 78 were set aside due to the confusion and disputes surrounding the payment options. The judgment modified the impugned order, directing a reevaluation of the demand based on the basic fare method and nullifying all penalties.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346778</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>