<?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>2009 (1) TMI 71 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32795</link>
    <description>Service tax demand on Goods Transport Operator Service was set aside because the lower appellate authority had relied on an apex court precedent governing the same issue. The appellate forum noted that the Revenue&#039;s challenge on the same ratio had already been decided by the apex court, leaving no basis to interfere with the relief granted. The demand was therefore not restored, and the Revenue&#039;s appeal was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=71433" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (1) TMI 71 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32795</link>
      <description>Service tax demand on Goods Transport Operator Service was set aside because the lower appellate authority had relied on an apex court precedent governing the same issue. The appellate forum noted that the Revenue&#039;s challenge on the same ratio had already been decided by the apex court, leaving no basis to interfere with the relief granted. The demand was therefore not restored, and the Revenue&#039;s appeal was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32795</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>