<?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 (10) TMI 140 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348985</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that both show cause notices for service tax evasion were not sustainable on limitation grounds due to procedural flaws, including the lack of specific reasons for invoking the extended period under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. Consequently, the impugned Order-in-Original was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, leading to the overturning of penalties imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Oct 2017 09:42:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=491426" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (10) TMI 140 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348985</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that both show cause notices for service tax evasion were not sustainable on limitation grounds due to procedural flaws, including the lack of specific reasons for invoking the extended period under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. Consequently, the impugned Order-in-Original was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, leading to the overturning of penalties imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348985</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>