<?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>2018 (1) TMI 1134 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354398</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal against the Order-in-Appeal allowing the limitation plea on service tax demand for April to September 2006. The Commissioner held that the Department failed to prove intentional evasion of service tax, deeming the demand for that period time-barred. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue&#039;s grounds of appeal and upheld the previous decision, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Jan 2018 08:18:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=506183" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (1) TMI 1134 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354398</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal against the Order-in-Appeal allowing the limitation plea on service tax demand for April to September 2006. The Commissioner held that the Department failed to prove intentional evasion of service tax, deeming the demand for that period time-barred. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue&#039;s grounds of appeal and upheld the previous decision, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354398</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>