<?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 273 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362965</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal by setting aside the demand for the extended period and penalties for the normal period, while sustaining the demand for the normal period. The decision emphasized the confusion regarding credit eligibility for trading activities and the lack of evidence supporting intentional evasion.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Jul 2018 07:53:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=525890" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (7) TMI 273 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362965</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal by setting aside the demand for the extended period and penalties for the normal period, while sustaining the demand for the normal period. The decision emphasized the confusion regarding credit eligibility for trading activities and the lack of evidence supporting intentional evasion.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362965</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>