<?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 (11) TMI 947 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430523</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling that the forfeiture of the advance payment did not constitute a declared service under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant was not liable to pay service tax on the forfeited amount, and the extended period of limitation was deemed inapplicable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2022 12:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=696454" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (11) TMI 947 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430523</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling that the forfeiture of the advance payment did not constitute a declared service under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant was not liable to pay service tax on the forfeited amount, and the extended period of limitation was deemed inapplicable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430523</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>