<?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>2022 (6) TMI 860 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424019</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the Commissioner was not justified in invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, as the show cause notice did not prove suppression with intent to evade payment of service tax. The Commissioner&#039;s order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Jun 2022 08:54:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=682625" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (6) TMI 860 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424019</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the Commissioner was not justified in invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, as the show cause notice did not prove suppression with intent to evade payment of service tax. The Commissioner&#039;s order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424019</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>