<?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 (9) TMI 986 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367250</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal by setting aside the penalty imposed on the appellant for claiming service tax credit for Storage and Warehousing Services. The demand and interest were upheld due to the invocation of the extended period for demand being legally justified. The Tribunal considered the appellant&#039;s bona fide belief in their eligibility for the credit, as acknowledged in a previous communication from the Department, leading to the penalty being set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Sep 2018 08:00:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=534748" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (9) TMI 986 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367250</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal by setting aside the penalty imposed on the appellant for claiming service tax credit for Storage and Warehousing Services. The demand and interest were upheld due to the invocation of the extended period for demand being legally justified. The Tribunal considered the appellant&#039;s bona fide belief in their eligibility for the credit, as acknowledged in a previous communication from the Department, leading to the penalty being set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367250</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>