<?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 (8) TMI 257 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33441</link>
    <description>Interim waiver and stay of recovery were granted where the assessee showed a prima facie case for the more beneficial exemption notification and the conditions for the specific mandap keeper notification were not clearly established. The later restriction against simultaneous benefit of two notifications was noted as having been introduced only from 10.09.2004. Because the assessee billed separately for food and drinks, full compliance with the specific notification was not prima facie demonstrated, while compliance with the alternative notification was not disputed. Pending disposal of the appeal, recovery of the demanded amount was stayed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=72073" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (8) TMI 257 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33441</link>
      <description>Interim waiver and stay of recovery were granted where the assessee showed a prima facie case for the more beneficial exemption notification and the conditions for the specific mandap keeper notification were not clearly established. The later restriction against simultaneous benefit of two notifications was noted as having been introduced only from 10.09.2004. Because the assessee billed separately for food and drinks, full compliance with the specific notification was not prima facie demonstrated, while compliance with the alternative notification was not disputed. Pending disposal of the appeal, recovery of the demanded amount was stayed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33441</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>