<?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>2019 (1) TMI 253 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373088</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the Show Cause Notice issued beyond the limitation period was time-barred. It emphasized that the burden of proving suppression rested with the Department, which failed to provide sufficient evidence. The appellant&#039;s argument against penalties was accepted, citing the statutory provision post-amendment in Section 80. The Order of Commissioner(Appeals) was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Jan 2019 12:19:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=551425" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (1) TMI 253 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373088</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the Show Cause Notice issued beyond the limitation period was time-barred. It emphasized that the burden of proving suppression rested with the Department, which failed to provide sufficient evidence. The appellant&#039;s argument against penalties was accepted, citing the statutory provision post-amendment in Section 80. The Order of Commissioner(Appeals) was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373088</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>