<?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 95 - CESTAT, DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35455</link>
    <description>Recovery of the disputed tax demand was stayed pending appeal after the tribunal considered the amount already deposited and the appellant&#039;s contention that the contract was divisible for tax purposes. No view was expressed on the merits of the demand at this stage. The stay operated during the pendency of the appeal, subject to recovery of the admitted amount already paid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=74042" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (5) TMI 95 - CESTAT, DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35455</link>
      <description>Recovery of the disputed tax demand was stayed pending appeal after the tribunal considered the amount already deposited and the appellant&#039;s contention that the contract was divisible for tax purposes. No view was expressed on the merits of the demand at this stage. The stay operated during the pendency of the appeal, subject to recovery of the admitted amount already paid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35455</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>