<?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 (5) TMI 67 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34922</link>
    <description>The Tribunal remanded the case involving M/s. Prince Foundation Ltd. back to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was to be re-evaluated, providing the appellants with an opportunity for an effective hearing. The appeal was allowed through remand due to the merit found in arguments regarding the applicability of service tax on works contracts and the developer&#039;s role as clarified by the CBEC.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Apr 2013 15:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=73533" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (5) TMI 67 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34922</link>
      <description>The Tribunal remanded the case involving M/s. Prince Foundation Ltd. back to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was to be re-evaluated, providing the appellants with an opportunity for an effective hearing. The appeal was allowed through remand due to the merit found in arguments regarding the applicability of service tax on works contracts and the developer&#039;s role as clarified by the CBEC.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34922</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>