<?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 (2) TMI 105 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33327</link>
    <description>Following its earlier ruling on the same issue, the Tribunal accepted the Revenue&#039;s challenge and allowed the appeal. The lower appellate authority&#039;s order was upheld in substance, but the limited direction permitting adjustment of any amount already paid by the respondent against the demand was retained, subject to verification of the records. The result was that the Revenue succeeded, while the adjustment safeguard remained available only on proof from the record.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=71960" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (2) TMI 105 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33327</link>
      <description>Following its earlier ruling on the same issue, the Tribunal accepted the Revenue&#039;s challenge and allowed the appeal. The lower appellate authority&#039;s order was upheld in substance, but the limited direction permitting adjustment of any amount already paid by the respondent against the demand was retained, subject to verification of the records. The result was that the Revenue succeeded, while the adjustment safeguard remained available only on proof from the record.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33327</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>