<?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>2007 (6) TMI 212 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31751</link>
    <description>Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 6/2005-Service Tax depended on whether the relevant threshold was to be tested against billed amounts or actual receipts. The factual position on that issue had not been finally verified, so the existing finding could not be sustained without examination of the underlying records. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for verification of the facts and for passing a fresh order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Jun 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Jun 2009 15:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=70397" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (6) TMI 212 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31751</link>
      <description>Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 6/2005-Service Tax depended on whether the relevant threshold was to be tested against billed amounts or actual receipts. The factual position on that issue had not been finally verified, so the existing finding could not be sustained without examination of the underlying records. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for verification of the facts and for passing a fresh order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Jun 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31751</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>