<?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>2008 (5) TMI 36 - Cestat Ahmedabad</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30162</link>
    <description>The appellate order was remanded because it did not deal with the assessee&#039;s cited precedents or give reasons for rejecting them. The Tribunal held that the service tax dispute concerning technical know-how service as a consulting engineer had not been examined with adequate reasoning, so fresh adjudication was required. It did not decide the substantive tax liability and instead sent the matter back for reconsideration after proper consideration of the relied-upon judgments.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=68820" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (5) TMI 36 - Cestat Ahmedabad</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30162</link>
      <description>The appellate order was remanded because it did not deal with the assessee&#039;s cited precedents or give reasons for rejecting them. The Tribunal held that the service tax dispute concerning technical know-how service as a consulting engineer had not been examined with adequate reasoning, so fresh adjudication was required. It did not decide the substantive tax liability and instead sent the matter back for reconsideration after proper consideration of the relied-upon judgments.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30162</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>