<?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 (12) TMI 16 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351747</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellants concerning the penalty under section 78 and the extended period for proceedings. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order as the appellants had already paid the tax dues, and there was no justification for invoking the extended period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Dec 2017 07:42:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=498255" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (12) TMI 16 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351747</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellants concerning the penalty under section 78 and the extended period for proceedings. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order as the appellants had already paid the tax dues, and there was no justification for invoking the extended period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351747</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>