<?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 (3) TMI 1388 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357685</link>
    <description>The Appellate Authority confirmed the demand and penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal found that the Show Cause Notice was not validly served as it did not comply with legal provisions. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, emphasizing the importance of a valid Show Cause Notice for jurisdiction. The appeal was allowed with consequential benefits to the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Jun 2019 13:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=514952" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (3) TMI 1388 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357685</link>
      <description>The Appellate Authority confirmed the demand and penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal found that the Show Cause Notice was not validly served as it did not comply with legal provisions. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, emphasizing the importance of a valid Show Cause Notice for jurisdiction. The appeal was allowed with consequential benefits to the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357685</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>