<?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 228 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379500</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the department&#039;s appeal and allowed the cross-objection filed by the assessee, setting aside the remnant demand of &amp;amp;8377;4,29,107. The decision highlighted the significance of correctly classifying services for determining service tax liability and the importance of maintaining legal sanctity in upholding demands, particularly when the notice is considered non-maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 May 2019 10:45:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=569504" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (5) TMI 228 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379500</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the department&#039;s appeal and allowed the cross-objection filed by the assessee, setting aside the remnant demand of &amp;amp;8377;4,29,107. The decision highlighted the significance of correctly classifying services for determining service tax liability and the importance of maintaining legal sanctity in upholding demands, particularly when the notice is considered non-maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379500</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>