<?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 (7) TMI 178 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362870</link>
    <description>The Tribunal remanded the case to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration as the appellant had not provided enough evidence to support their claim that handling charges were reimbursable expenses. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed by way of remand, leaving all issues open for further examination.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Jul 2018 09:48:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=525745" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (7) TMI 178 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362870</link>
      <description>The Tribunal remanded the case to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration as the appellant had not provided enough evidence to support their claim that handling charges were reimbursable expenses. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed by way of remand, leaving all issues open for further examination.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362870</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>