<?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 (12) TMI 880 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219865</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the service tax demand against the appellant for the period 15/12/2007 to 10/09/2008 was not sustainable due to the divisions within the company not being separate legal entities despite having separate registrations. However, the matter concerning service tax payment for the period 11/09/2008 to March 2010 was remanded for further verification. The appeal proceeded without pre-deposit to confirm if the appellant had paid the service tax for the specific period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 29 Dec 2012 06:37:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=193235" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (12) TMI 880 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219865</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the service tax demand against the appellant for the period 15/12/2007 to 10/09/2008 was not sustainable due to the divisions within the company not being separate legal entities despite having separate registrations. However, the matter concerning service tax payment for the period 11/09/2008 to March 2010 was remanded for further verification. The appeal proceeded without pre-deposit to confirm if the appellant had paid the service tax for the specific period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219865</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>