<?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 (11) TMI 680 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267871</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, setting aside the demands related to commission received from M/s. JCB under &#039;Business Support Services.&#039; It found that the first appellate authority exceeded the scope of the show cause notice by confirming demands under &#039;Business Support Services,&#039; deeming it incorrect. The demands related to M/s. JCB under &#039;Business Support Services&#039; were thus set aside, while other aspects of the order were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Nov 2015 10:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=405323" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (11) TMI 680 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267871</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, setting aside the demands related to commission received from M/s. JCB under &#039;Business Support Services.&#039; It found that the first appellate authority exceeded the scope of the show cause notice by confirming demands under &#039;Business Support Services,&#039; deeming it incorrect. The demands related to M/s. JCB under &#039;Business Support Services&#039; were thus set aside, while other aspects of the order were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267871</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>