<?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 (1) TMI 188 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174167</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that prior to the insertion of the explanation in the Finance Act, 1994 on 01/05/2006, the appellant&#039;s activity was not liable to service tax. Citing previous decisions, the Tribunal concluded that the issue was settled and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and stay application in favor of the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2016 12:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=399526" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (1) TMI 188 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174167</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that prior to the insertion of the explanation in the Finance Act, 1994 on 01/05/2006, the appellant&#039;s activity was not liable to service tax. Citing previous decisions, the Tribunal concluded that the issue was settled and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and stay application in favor of the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174167</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>