<?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 (10) TMI 648 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368682</link>
    <description>An appellate order on taxability, limitation, exemption and penalties was unsustainable because the appellate authority had not dealt with the appellant&#039;s legal objections or recorded findings on each issue raised. The matter also required consideration of the appellant&#039;s contention that similarly placed contractors had been treated differently. The impugned order was therefore set aside and the dispute was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision with specific findings on all issues.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2018 09:51:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=538030" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (10) TMI 648 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368682</link>
      <description>An appellate order on taxability, limitation, exemption and penalties was unsustainable because the appellate authority had not dealt with the appellant&#039;s legal objections or recorded findings on each issue raised. The matter also required consideration of the appellant&#039;s contention that similarly placed contractors had been treated differently. The impugned order was therefore set aside and the dispute was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision with specific findings on all issues.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368682</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>