<?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>2014 (1) TMI 1254 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243039</link>
    <description>Repair, renovation and alteration of existing office and commercial premises were treated, prima facie, as the relevant taxable service, and there was no material showing completion or finishing services of the kind relied on by the Revenue to deny Notification No. 1/2006-ST. On that basis, the applicants established a prima facie case for the notification benefit and for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery, and the stay petition was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2017 18:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=343626" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (1) TMI 1254 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243039</link>
      <description>Repair, renovation and alteration of existing office and commercial premises were treated, prima facie, as the relevant taxable service, and there was no material showing completion or finishing services of the kind relied on by the Revenue to deny Notification No. 1/2006-ST. On that basis, the applicants established a prima facie case for the notification benefit and for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery, and the stay petition was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243039</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>