<?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 (7) TMI 39 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34248</link>
    <description>Exemption under a small-scale service tax notification could not be denied without verifying whether course fees remained unrealised and whether tax on refunded fees had also been refunded. The record was insufficient to determine if the taxable value stayed within the notification threshold, so factual confirmation was necessary before rejecting the benefit. The order was therefore set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication after verification and hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 11:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=72874" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (7) TMI 39 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34248</link>
      <description>Exemption under a small-scale service tax notification could not be denied without verifying whether course fees remained unrealised and whether tax on refunded fees had also been refunded. The record was insufficient to determine if the taxable value stayed within the notification threshold, so factual confirmation was necessary before rejecting the benefit. The order was therefore set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication after verification and hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34248</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>