<?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>2012 (11) TMI 684 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218669</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal due to discrepancies between the show cause notice and the confirmation of demand by the adjudicating authority, which exceeded the notice&#039;s scope. The imposition of penalty under Section 78 was set aside alongside the demand for service tax. The decision emphasized the necessity for alignment between the notice and services taxed, promoting fair tax proceedings and adherence to natural justice principles.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2012 22:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=192041" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (11) TMI 684 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218669</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal due to discrepancies between the show cause notice and the confirmation of demand by the adjudicating authority, which exceeded the notice&#039;s scope. The imposition of penalty under Section 78 was set aside alongside the demand for service tax. The decision emphasized the necessity for alignment between the notice and services taxed, promoting fair tax proceedings and adherence to natural justice principles.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218669</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>