<?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 (5) TMI 63 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379335</link>
    <description>General declaration was accepted as sufficient support for 75% abatement on freight charges, limiting tax liability to the remaining 25% with interest. The dispute was treated as one of clarification or rectification of the earlier final order, and because it turned on interpretation rather than wrongdoing, penalty was not sustained. The operative effect was extension of the abatement benefit, maintenance of tax on the balance freight component, and deletion of penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 May 2019 09:44:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=569107" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (5) TMI 63 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379335</link>
      <description>General declaration was accepted as sufficient support for 75% abatement on freight charges, limiting tax liability to the remaining 25% with interest. The dispute was treated as one of clarification or rectification of the earlier final order, and because it turned on interpretation rather than wrongdoing, penalty was not sustained. The operative effect was extension of the abatement benefit, maintenance of tax on the balance freight component, and deletion of penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379335</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>