<?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>2017 (6) TMI 1249 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274471</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the demand for the extended period of limitation and confirmed the demand within the regular period, treating it as cum service tax. The decision was based on the non-applicability of the extended period due to the disputed taxability issue during the relevant period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Aug 2018 09:19:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=530950" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (6) TMI 1249 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274471</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the demand for the extended period of limitation and confirmed the demand within the regular period, treating it as cum service tax. The decision was based on the non-applicability of the extended period due to the disputed taxability issue during the relevant period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274471</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>