<?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 (4) TMI 157 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35095</link>
    <description>The dispute concerned whether outward transportation could qualify as input service and whether limitation barred the claim. As resolution depended on factual examination of the sales pattern, delivery terms, the Board circular, and a cited High Court decision, the appellate and original orders were set aside. The matter was remanded to the original authority for fresh adjudication on all issues, including limitation, after granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 12:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=73701" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (4) TMI 157 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35095</link>
      <description>The dispute concerned whether outward transportation could qualify as input service and whether limitation barred the claim. As resolution depended on factual examination of the sales pattern, delivery terms, the Board circular, and a cited High Court decision, the appellate and original orders were set aside. The matter was remanded to the original authority for fresh adjudication on all issues, including limitation, after granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35095</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>