<?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>2015 (4) TMI 702 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258821</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the services rendered by the appellant during the relevant period fell under Consulting Engineers Services, exempting them from the payment of service tax liability. The appeal filed by the appellant was allowed with consequential relief, while the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected. The Tribunal found in favor of the appellant based on the nature of services provided, clarifying that they were not liable for service tax during the period in question.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2015 17:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=382485" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (4) TMI 702 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258821</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the services rendered by the appellant during the relevant period fell under Consulting Engineers Services, exempting them from the payment of service tax liability. The appeal filed by the appellant was allowed with consequential relief, while the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected. The Tribunal found in favor of the appellant based on the nature of services provided, clarifying that they were not liable for service tax during the period in question.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258821</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>