<?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 (1) TMI 329 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30974</link>
    <description>The appellate tribunal remanded the case to the original authority for a fresh decision. The appellant was granted an opportunity to present their case, and the appeal was allowed by way of remand to establish whether the advertising agencies had paid service tax on the gross value, including the cost towards hoarding.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 14 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2014 15:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=69627" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (1) TMI 329 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30974</link>
      <description>The appellate tribunal remanded the case to the original authority for a fresh decision. The appellant was granted an opportunity to present their case, and the appeal was allowed by way of remand to establish whether the advertising agencies had paid service tax on the gross value, including the cost towards hoarding.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30974</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>