<?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 (10) TMI 142 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428584</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the imposition of liquidated damages did not constitute a service under the Finance Act. The demand for Service Tax on liquidated damages was deemed unjustified under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act. The Tribunal set aside the Revenue&#039;s order and allowed the appeal with any consequential benefits as per the law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Oct 2022 08:35:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=692592" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (10) TMI 142 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428584</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the imposition of liquidated damages did not constitute a service under the Finance Act. The demand for Service Tax on liquidated damages was deemed unjustified under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act. The Tribunal set aside the Revenue&#039;s order and allowed the appeal with any consequential benefits as per the law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428584</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>