<?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>2013 (9) TMI 471 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237039</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration. The requirement of pre-deposit was waived, and the appellant was granted the opportunity to be heard before a new order was issued. The decision emphasized the importance of accurately categorizing services for tax purposes, the necessity of expert valuations, and the significance of following legal procedures when making retrospective amendments to agreements.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Jul 2015 11:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=199446" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (9) TMI 471 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237039</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration. The requirement of pre-deposit was waived, and the appellant was granted the opportunity to be heard before a new order was issued. The decision emphasized the importance of accurately categorizing services for tax purposes, the necessity of expert valuations, and the significance of following legal procedures when making retrospective amendments to agreements.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237039</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>