<?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 22 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351753</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld tax demands for services provided by a security agency within the normal period but deemed the demand from a specific notice as time-barred. Penalties under Section 80 were waived due to the appellant&#039;s circumstances, emphasizing the significance of comprehending tax liabilities and the consequences of invoking the extended period for demands.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Dec 2017 07:43:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=498261" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (12) TMI 22 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351753</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld tax demands for services provided by a security agency within the normal period but deemed the demand from a specific notice as time-barred. Penalties under Section 80 were waived due to the appellant&#039;s circumstances, emphasizing the significance of comprehending tax liabilities and the consequences of invoking the extended period for demands.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351753</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>