<?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 (2) TMI 650 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355229</link>
    <description>The appeal was partly allowed, setting aside the demand for the extended period and the penalty. The demand within the limitation period was confirmed with interest. No penalty was imposed due to the lack of malafide intention on the appellant&#039;s part.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Feb 2018 07:19:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=508584" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (2) TMI 650 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355229</link>
      <description>The appeal was partly allowed, setting aside the demand for the extended period and the penalty. The demand within the limitation period was confirmed with interest. No penalty was imposed due to the lack of malafide intention on the appellant&#039;s part.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355229</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>