<?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>2025 (6) TMI 598 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772485</link>
    <description>The SC/Tribunal addressed three key issues regarding Service Tax on advances: (1) tax liability on pre-service advances, (2) cum-duty valuation benefits, and (3) extended limitation period and penalties. The court largely ruled in favor of the appellants, finding no deliberate tax evasion, setting aside penalties, and remanding the case for further examination of cum-duty valuation and tax calculation, emphasizing the need for proper reasoning and evidence of suppression.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Jun 2025 08:43:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=827974" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (6) TMI 598 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772485</link>
      <description>The SC/Tribunal addressed three key issues regarding Service Tax on advances: (1) tax liability on pre-service advances, (2) cum-duty valuation benefits, and (3) extended limitation period and penalties. The court largely ruled in favor of the appellants, finding no deliberate tax evasion, setting aside penalties, and remanding the case for further examination of cum-duty valuation and tax calculation, emphasizing the need for proper reasoning and evidence of suppression.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772485</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>